Peter Van Den Bergh

The Appellant, Ibrahim Tshibola, appealed his sexual assault conviction, arguing his s. 14 Charter right to a competent interpreter was violated.

He sought to admit fresh evidence from two independent interpreters detailing errors, omissions, and distortions in the trial interpretation, including issues with regional French dialects.

The court applied the Palmer test for fresh evidence, finding the evidence admissible and cogent, and that the due diligence requirement was satisfied given the compelling nature of the evidence and the defence counsel's inability to detect the issues at trial.

The court concluded that the interpretation fell below the constitutionally guaranteed standard, calling into question the integrity and fairness of the trial.

The appeal was granted, and a new trial ordered.

Mario Sejko was convicted by a jury of dangerous driving.

This decision concerns his sentencing.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his excessive speed (nearly double the limit on a rainy night), his criminal record (youth convictions and a subsequent robbery conviction), and his limited acceptance of responsibility.

Mitigating factors included his youth at the time of the offence (19), his positive pre-sentence report, efforts to improve education and employment prospects, family support, and remaining at the scene to assist.

The Crown sought a $2,000 fine, two years' probation, and an 18-month driving prohibition, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected a conditional discharge due to the need for denunciation and general deterrence, and the offender's criminal record and limited remorse.

A sentence of a $2,000 fine, 18 months' probation, and a one-year driving prohibition was imposed.

The accused was convicted following trial of sexual assault against a complainant under the age of 18 and sexual interference, with the latter conviction stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The sentencing court considered the principles of sentencing under ss. 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences involving vulnerable youth.

Aggravating factors included the complainant’s age and vulnerability, while mitigating factors included the offender’s lack of prior criminal record and relative youth.

After reviewing comparable jurisprudence and legislative amendments affecting sexual offences, the court imposed a custodial sentence within the lower range for such offences.

Ancillary orders including DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a sex offender registry order, and a s. 161 prohibition were also imposed.

Following convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings prior to sentencing, alleging breaches of his rights under s. 14 and s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The accused claimed he required an interpreter in a specific dialect and that the failure to provide one caused unreasonable delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused had sufficient proficiency in English and general Yoruba to understand the proceedings, and that the request for a specific dialect interpreter was a delay tactic.

The court concluded the delay was not unreasonable and was largely attributable to the accused's own actions.

The accused challenged the competence of a proposed Yoruba-language court interpreter at the outset of a criminal trial.

The court conducted a voir dire to assess whether the interpreter met the constitutional requirements under s. 14 of the Charter.

Evidence showed that although the interpreter had extensive legal education, language proficiency, and years of courtroom interpreting experience, he was not accredited and spoke a different Yoruba dialect than the accused.

The court found that repeated clarification and dialect differences raised concerns about the continuity, precision, and competency standards for interpretation articulated in leading authorities.

The interpreter was therefore not qualified for the trial, and the proceedings were adjourned to secure adequate interpretation.