SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-1364-00
DATE: 20120918

RE: Her Majesty the Queen

v.

Dennis Pecson

BEFORE: Ricchetti J.

COUNSEL: C. Valarezo, for the Crown
N. Ronka, for the Accused

E N D O R S E M E N T

[ 1 ] This matter was scheduled to proceed to trial this week.

[ 2 ] Mr. Pecson requires a Tagalog interpreter for the trial. Counsel agree that there are NO accredited Tagalog interpreters in Ontario . Given the Ministry of the Attorney General's policy regarding the use of accredited interpreters for trial and the fact there are no accredited Tagalog interpreters in Ontario, this creates a potentially very serious situation in criminal matters. This is a matter which needs to be addressed by the Ministry of the Attorney General immediately. One suggestion is that any applications for accreditation for Tagalog interpreters be expedited as I understand one of the two proffered Tagalog interpreters is waiting to be tested.

[ 3 ] The Crown proffered two Tagalog interpreters for the trial in this matter. Prior to this court embarking upon an enquiry to determine whether either, both or neither of these proffered Tagalog interpreters was a competent Tagalog interpreter, Defence counsel objected to the court embarking upon the enquiry.

[ 4 ] The Defence relied upon decisions such as R. v. Keffle, 2012 ONSC 1579, R. v. Thillayampalam 2011 ONCJ 800 and the cases referred to in those cases to support his position that the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the competency of the interpreter when the proffered interpreter is not an accredited interpreter.

[ 5 ] This underscores the serious potential consequences if the Ministry of Attorney General fails to ensure there are accredited interpreters available in all the languages needed for criminal trials in this province.

[ 6 ] The countervailing view is set out by Justice Campbell in R. v. Blair, 2012 ONCJ 235. Justice Blair determined that the court could and should nevertheless conduct an enquiry into the competency of the proffered interpreter.

[ 7 ] At the conclusions of the Defence submissions, I advised the Defence I would hold an enquiry into the competency of the two proffered Tagalog interpreters.

[ 8 ] Mr. Pecson is entitled to a competent Tagalog interpreter. See. R. v. Tran, (1994) 1994 SCC 56 , 92, C.C.C. (3d) 218 (S.C.C.).

[ 9 ] Mr. Pecson is not guaranteed an accredited Tagalog interpreter. S. 14 of the Charter provides constitutional assurance of a competent or qualified court interpreter not necessarily a certified or accredited interpreter. See R. v. Sidhu, (2005) 2005 ONCA 42491 , 203 C.C.C. (3d) 17 at para. 298 .

[ 10 ] That is not to say that accreditation is not important. It is a significant factor favouring qualification because the testing methodology for contemporaneous translation has independently established objective standards by qualified persons and the proffered interpreter has been independently tested and passed according to those standards. See R. v. Dutt , 2011 ONSC 3329 at para. 54 .

[ 11 ] Only after a full enquiry into the proffered Tagalog interpreters can this court could determine whether either, both or neither of the two proffered Tagalog interpreters is "competent" or "qualified" to interpret in this trial. Perhaps they may have passed some other accreditation or there is some other independent and objective basis to qualify the proffered interpreter as a competent or qualified interpreter.

[ 12 ] Prior to embarking on the enquiry, Defence counsel advised that Sophie Reyesleger is a conditionally accredited Tagalog interpreter. I am advised Ms. Reyesleger is conditionally accredited because she passed as a consecutive Tagalog interpreter but didn't do so as a simultaneous Tagalog interpreter. Ms. Reyesleger was the Tagalog interpreter used at the preliminary enquiry in this matter.

[ 13 ] Defence counsel advises that Mr. Pecson is agreeable to Ms. Reyesleger being the Tagalog interpreter for the trial in this matter (subject to this court being satisfied that Ms. Reyesleger is a competent interpreter) and any further directions by the trial judge.

[ 14 ] After questioning by this court, Defence counsel asked for an adjournment to permit the Crown to enquire about arrangements for Ms. Reyesleger to attend this court to be proffered as a Tagalog interpreter in this case. As part of the adjournment request, the Defence agreed to waive any s. 11(b) Charter rights arising from today's date until the re-scheduled trial date.

[ 15 ] The Crown consents to the adjournment of this trial on the above terms to January 7, 2013. So ordered. The Crown advises arrangements have been made to have Ms. Reyesleger available for the new trial date.

[ 16 ] Accused is remanded to the new trial date.

Ricchetti J.

RELEASE DATE: Orally released in Court on September 18, 2012

COURT FILE NO.: CR-11-1364-00

DATE: 20120918

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO RE: Her Majesty the Queen v. Dennis Pecson BEFORE: Ricchetti J. COUNSEL: C. Valarezo, for the Crown N. Ronka, for the Accused ENDORSEMENT Ricchetti J.

DATE: September 18, 2012