S. Patterson

The Crown applied for an order permitting six witnesses to testify by videoconference at the accused's fraud trial.

Three witnesses resided in the United States and three resided in Canada outside Ontario.

The accused opposed the application for one US witness on the basis of solicitor-client privilege, and opposed the Canadian witnesses on the basis of credibility and memory issues.

The court granted the application, finding that privilege issues should be dealt with separately and that credibility issues could be assessed equally well over video.

The court concluded the statutory tests under ss. 714.1 and 714.2 of the Criminal Code were met.

The applicant, charged with second degree murder, applied for a stay of proceedings or an increase in juror remuneration, arguing that the current payment framework under the Administration of Justice Act breaches his ss. 11(d) and 11(f) Charter rights by excluding lower-income individuals and creating an unrepresentative jury.

The court dismissed the application, finding that jury representativeness depends on the random selection of the jury roll, not diversity, and that the applicant failed to provide evidence that financial hardship disproportionately affects lower-paid workers or that increased remuneration would resolve the issue.

A voir dire was conducted to determine whether a proposed Tagalog interpreter was competent to assist the accused at a criminal trial for theft over $5,000.

The interpreter was conditionally accredited by the Ministry of the Attorney General and had previously failed to achieve full accreditation under the current testing regime.

Applying the constitutional standard for interpreter assistance under s. 14 of the Charter as articulated in Tran, the court emphasized that interpretation must meet standards of continuity, precision, impartiality, competency, and contemporaneousness.

The court held that the interpreter’s objective test results and lack of full accreditation did not satisfy the high threshold required to ensure the accused’s right to fully understand and participate in the proceedings.

The proposed interpreter was therefore found not qualified to interpret at the accused’s trial.