Patricia Garcia

During a voir dire on the voluntariness of a police statement in a prosecution for sexual offences against a child, the accused sought to adduce expert psychological opinion evidence to support a claim that he lacked an operating mind due to depression when he made the statement.

The Crown opposed the admissibility of the proposed expert evidence.

Applying the criteria for expert evidence set out in R. v. Mohan, the court focused on the necessity requirement.

The proposed expert could not provide a formal diagnosis and largely repeated the accused’s own description of his emotional state.

The court held that the opinion evidence was not necessary to assist the trier of fact in determining voluntariness and excluded the expert evidence.

In a criminal prosecution for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, the defence objected to the use of non‑accredited Korean interpreters for the complainant’s testimony given by video‑link and sought an adjournment or stay unless a conditionally accredited interpreter was available.

The court held that accreditation is not constitutionally required and that the relevant issue is interpreter competence.

After conducting a voir dire to assess qualifications, experience, and impartiality, the court found that one proposed interpreter demonstrated sufficient competence to provide accurate and impartial interpretation.

The absence of formal accreditation was not determinative, and the court retained discretion to qualify a competent interpreter where necessary to ensure a fair trial.