To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit our website to provide feedback.
Criminal law — Trial — Language of accused
(00:01:00) Facts and Procedural History
(00:01:58) Held (Karakatsanis and Martin JJ. dissenting)
(00:02:08) Per Wagner C.J. and Côté, Rowe, Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ.
(00:13:43) Per Karakatsanis and Martin JJ. (dissenting)
(00:22:30) Reasons for Judgment: Wagner C.J. (Côté, Rowe, Kasirer and O’Bonsawin JJ. concurring) – 1
(00:22:40) I. Overview – 1
(00:27:47) II. Procedural and Judicial History – 9
(00:28:54) A. Decisions of the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Marchand J.) – 11
(00:28:59) (1) Voir Dire Decision, 2019 BCSC 2442 – 11
(00:30:15) (2) Decision on Guilt, 2019 BCSC 1529 – 13
(00:31:00) B. Decision of the British Columbia Court of Appeal, 2022 BCCA 177 (Dickson, Griffin and Voith JJ.A.) – 15
(00:35:40) III. Issues – 21
(00:36:57) IV. Analysis – 23
(00:37:13) A. Language Rights: Purpose, Nature and Interpretation – 24
(00:37:18) (1) Purpose and Nature – 24
(00:38:43) (2) Interpretation – 27
(00:39:05) B. Institutional Judicial Bilingualism: An Essential Component of the Preservation and Development of Linguistic Minorities – 28
(00:43:24) C. Language Rights Guaranteed by Section 530 Cr. C. – 36
(00:47:17) (1) Fundamental Right To Be Tried in the Official Language of One’s Choice – 37
(00:52:44) (2) Right To Be Advised of This Fundamental Right – 43
(01:01:58) D. Powers of a Court of Appeal Hearing an Appeal Against a Conviction – 53
(01:03:36) (1) Principle Underlying Any Intervention by a Court of Appeal Under Section 686(1)(a) Cr. C. – 54
(01:05:43) (2) Importance of Distinguishing Errors of Law From the Other Two Types of Errors Referred to in Section 686(1)(a) Cr. C. – 57
(01:07:40) (a) Error of Law (Section 686(1)(a)(ii) Cr. C.) – 60
(01:08:20) (i) Error in the Application of a Legal Rule – 61
(01:11:33) (ii) Related to the Proceedings Leading to the Conviction – 66
(01:12:00) (iii) Made by a Judge – 67
(01:17:33) (b) Miscarriage of Justice (Section 686(1)(a)(iii) Cr. C.) – 72
(01:18:47) (3) Curative Provisos in Section 686(1)(b) Cr. C. – 74
(01:21:22) E. Framework That Applies Where a Breach of Section 530(3) Cr. C. Is Raised for the First Time on Appeal – 78
(01:21:49) (1) What the Accused Must Show to Justify Appellate Intervention – 79
(01:27:27) (2) What the Crown Can Show to Have the Appeal Dismissed Nonetheless – 88
(01:32:16) (3) This Framework Helps Prevent the Risk of Instrumentalization – 94
(01:38:38) F. Application to This Case – 102
(01:39:12) (1) The Curative Proviso Can Apply – 103
(01:43:12) (2) The Crown Has Failed to Show That Mr. Tayo Tompouba’s Fundamental Right Was in Fact Respected – 110
(01:44:36) (a) Inconclusiveness of the Evidence – 113
(01:44:39) (i) Impact of a Breach of Section 530(3) Cr. C. on the Choice of Official Language – 113
(01:47:41) (ii) Timely Knowledge Otherwise Than Through Notice Under Section 530(3) Cr. C. – 118
(01:53:32) (b) The Inconclusiveness of the Evidence Must Benefit Mr. Tayo Tompouba – 125
(01:55:25) (3) Conclusion – 128
(01:56:37) V. Disposition – 129
(01:56:47) Joint Dissenting Reasons: Karakatsanis and Martin JJ.
(01:56:53) I. Overview – 130
(02:03:16) II. Analysis – 138
(02:03:56) A. Section 530 of the Criminal Code – 139
(02:09:17) B. Section 686 of the Criminal Code – 146
(02:26:21) C. Characterizing the Right in Section 530(3) – 167
(02:30:21) D. Characterizing Non-Compliance With Section 530(3) – 172
(02:35:42) E. The Evidentiary Burden on the Appellant – 177
(02:46:16) III. Application – 189
(02:50:46) IV. The Trial Judge’s Duty Under Section 530(4) – 196
(02:53:41) V. Disposition – 201
