Warren Spencer Gilmore

On a summary conviction appeal, the Crown challenged a trial judge’s refusal to adjourn a domestic-assault trial when an accredited Punjabi interpreter was unavailable and an unaccredited interpreter was rejected after a voir dire.

The appeal court held there was no breach of the accused’s interpreter rights because no trial had proceeded without competent interpretation, and an adjournment was the proper mechanism to prevent any Charter infringement.

The court found legal error in both finding a Charter breach and imposing a s. 24(1) stay without applying the governing stay test.

The reasons also found procedural unfairness to the Crown, including lack of proper notice and failure to receive submissions on the stay remedy.

The stay was set aside and a new trial ordered before a different judge.

The Crown appealed a summary conviction decision dismissing a charge of assault with a weapon after the trial judge granted a directed verdict at the close of the Crown’s case.

The trial judge applied the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt rather than the proper test for a directed verdict.

Applying the test from U.S.A. v. Shephard, the appeal court held that the correct inquiry was whether there was any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty.

The record contained substantial circumstantial evidence identifying the respondent as the assailant, including possession of a knife with the victim’s blood and injuries consistent with the fight.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered before a different justice.