The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mgs of alcohol in his body.
At trial, a dispute arose regarding whether the accused required a Tibetan interpreter.
The Crown challenged the necessity of an interpreter, arguing the accused spoke English.
The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the accused had a Charter right to interpreter assistance under section 14 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The court examined the accused's proficiency in English through his testimony and video evidence of police interactions, ultimately finding that the accused spoke English sufficiently and did not meet the threshold for requiring an interpreter.
