Other Tribunals - OCJ

An applicant sought an order permitting him to obtain a transcript of proceedings in a pre-enquete hearing.

The Crown argued that jurisdiction to review pre-enquete proceedings rests solely with the Superior Court of Justice.

The court found that it retained jurisdiction to hear the application but determined that the application should be brought before the Justice of the Peace who presided over the original hearing, as she is best situated to determine the merits and exercise control over her court's process and any restrictions on use of the transcript.

The appellant appealed her conviction under the Building Code Act and sought to have her husband Denis Van Decker appear as her agent on appeal.

The trial Justice of the Peace had barred Van Decker from appearing as agent during the trial due to disruptive conduct and contempt of court.

The appeal court upheld the bar, finding that Van Decker was incompetent to represent the appellant and that his disruptive behavior over three days of trial warranted the exclusion.

The court noted that the appellant was capable of self-representation and that Van Decker had demonstrated a pattern of disruption across multiple proceedings.

The court addressed an ex parte communication from an unrepresented accused who objected to the pre-trial process and requested a further judicial pre-trial meeting.

The accused had failed to attend the Trial Co-ordinator's office following a judicial pre-trial conference and subsequently sent an unsigned letter to the court raising procedural objections.

The court rejected the accused's objections, finding the pre-trial process was properly conducted and that trial dates could be set.

The court reminded the accused that ex parte communications with the judge are prohibited and that all future communications must occur in open court on the record.

The respondent father repeatedly filed motions seeking to challenge final court decisions regarding crown wardship of two children.

After his initial status review application regarding one child was dismissed and his motion for leave to bring a status review application regarding the second child was denied, the father filed numerous repetitive motions attempting to circumvent the court's decisions and statutory time limits.

The court found this conduct constituted an abuse of process and issued orders prohibiting the father from filing further motions or applications regarding either child until the expiration of the six-month statutory period prescribed by the Child and Family Services Act.

The appellants sought extension of time to appeal provincial offence convictions for a parking violation and a red light infraction.

This was the fourth application for extension of time.

The appellants had repeatedly failed to appear at trial dates, appeal dates, and subsequent proceedings.

Previous applications had been dismissed as abandoned, and a prior judge had ordered that no further applications be filed without judicial leave.

The appellants did not comply with this order.

The court found the repeated filings to be frivolous and an abuse of process, and dismissed both applications with an order prohibiting further applications without prior written leave from a judge.

The accused pleaded guilty to theft under $5000 and failing to comply with a probation order, receiving a suspended sentence and probation.

The court issued a ruling on the use of restraints in the courtroom, addressing the practice of keeping all in-custody accused in handcuffs.

The judge ordered the removal of handcuffs and clarified that there is a presumption that accused persons should appear in court unrestrained unless the Crown establishes reasonable grounds for their use.

The Crown brought an ex parte, in camera application mid-trial seeking an order to exclude the public from the courtroom pursuant to section 486 of the Criminal Code due to an alleged security breach.

The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear an ex parte application during trial and concluded that such hearings are permissible in certain circumstances where they do not prejudice the accused's ability to defend himself or have knowledge of matters affecting his vital interests.

The court found that the application concerned court security rather than the substantive trial and therefore proceeded ex parte.

Evidence of a security breach was accepted, and an order excluding members of the public from the courtroom was granted, with specified exceptions for accredited press, court staff, Law Society members, and other designated persons.

The accused was charged with two driving-related offences and required a Korean interpreter.

The defence challenged the competency of the proposed interpreter, Mr. Hu-Kal Kim, who held only conditional accreditation, having failed to achieve the passing grade of 70% on two of three accreditation tests.

A voir dire was held to determine whether the interpreter was competent to provide forensic interpretation services.

The court applied the five-part test from R. v. Tran and found that despite partial accreditation, the interpreter possessed sufficient competency based on his extensive experience in forensic interpretation since 1981, prior successful qualification voir dires, and specific expertise in drinking and driving trials.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether Ms. Kathleen Hao, a conditionally accredited Tagalog interpreter, was qualified to provide interpretation assistance for the defendant's trial on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The Crown sought to qualify Ms. Hao for simultaneous interpretation, alternatively for consecutive interpretation.

The defence opposed qualification on both grounds, arguing that her conditional accreditation status and occasional use of English words rendered her unqualified.

The court found Ms. Hao not qualified for simultaneous interpretation but qualified for consecutive interpretation, based on her passing score in consecutive interpretation on the MAG test, combined with her background, training, and courtroom experience.

The accused was charged with driving over 80 and required a Tigrigna interpreter for trial.

A voir dire was held to determine whether a conditionally accredited interpreter was qualified to provide interpretation services.

The court found that the interpreter, despite being bilingual and having seven years of court experience, was not qualified to interpret for the trial based on his performance on the Ministry of the Attorney General's accreditation test.

The court emphasized that bilingualism alone does not equate to interpretation competence and that objectively valid skills testing is the most reliable way to assess interpreter qualifications for complex trials.

A voir dire was held to determine whether Edward Liu, a conditionally accredited Mandarin interpreter, was qualified to interpret for two Mandarin-speaking complainant witnesses at a preliminary hearing.

The Crown sought to have Liu qualified despite his conditional accreditation status from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

The defence opposed qualification, arguing that conditionally accredited interpreters should only be used for less complex proceedings.

The court found Liu competent and capable of interpreting and qualified him to serve as interpreter at the preliminary hearing.

The Criminal Lawyers' Association applied on behalf of Salma Jaffer for court-assessed fees above the legal aid rate of $88.00 per hour for work performed as amicus curiae in a serious sexual offence case.

The defendant was charged with multiple serious sexual offences, had difficulty maintaining solicitor-client relationships, and had questionable fitness.

The court appointed Jaffer as amicus to assist in ensuring the preliminary inquiry proceeded while protecting the defendant's fair trial interests.

The court granted the application and set Jaffer's remuneration at $150 per hour, finding that while the legal aid tariff is a significant factor, it is not conclusive and must be balanced against counsel's experience, the importance and complexity of the assignment, and the broader interests of the administration of justice.