To support us, please follow us wherever you're listening and visit ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠our website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to provide feedback.

Criminal law — Trial — Language of accused

(00:00:58) Summary

(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