2013 QCCA 1127, 2013 QCCA 1127

Nguyen c. R. 2013 QCCA 1127 COURT OF APPEAL CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC REGISTRY OF MONTREAL No: 500-10-004627-103 ( 505-01-080408-095 ) MINUTES OF THE HEARING DATE: JUNE 6, 2013 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. LORNE GIROUX, J.A. JACQUES A. LÉGER, J.A. APPELLANT ATTORNEY HANH DUC NGUYEN Mtre Randi Zaritsky Randi Zaritsky, avocat RESPONDENT ATTORNEY(

S) HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Mtre Daniel Royer Criminal and Penal prosecuting attorney

On appeal from a judgment rendered on March 11, 2010 by the Honourable Madam Justice Louise Leduc of the Quebec Court, district of Longueuil. Motion of the Appellant-accused requesting permission to present new evidence to the Court of appeal by way of affidavit. NATURE OF THE APPEAL : Conviction -cannabis Clerk: Marcelle Desmarais Courtroom: Antonio-Lamer HEARING 11 h35 Submissions by Mtre Randi Zaritsky. 12 h 27 Suspension. 14 h 09 Resumption BY THE COURT: Judgment – see page 3. Marcelle Desmarais Clerk BY THE COURT

JUDGMENT [1] The motion for new evidence de bene esse is granted. [2] The issue raised by Appellant is that of the right of an accused to consecutive translation from and to one of the officiallanguages to and from another language. Since the Appellant received whisper

interpretation during his trial, which was not recorded, itis not possible to verify the adequacy of the translation from French to Vietnamese that was provided to him. [3] The right to consecutive translation of a language other than French or English has so far not been deemed a constitutionalguarantee under

article 14 of the Constitutional Charter. In R. v. Sidhu ( (ON SC), 203 C.C.C. (3d) 17), a decision ofthe Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Hill J. found that the Crown and the Court should have been aware of the shortcomings in theinterpretation provided to the accused, based at least in part on other mistrials. Thus, the right of the accused to an interpreter under s. 14of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was demonstrably violated in that instance. [4] Such is not the case here. [5] The quality of the

interpretation was not raised at any point during the trial. In the absence of any indicia that the

interpretationwas inadequate, there can be no violation of the Charter on account of the

interpretation being simultaneous rather than consecutive. (See R. v. Roy Martin, 2001 QCCA 1179). [6] Appellant’s position is that the appellant is entitled to a new trial because the quality of the

interpretation cannot be verified. The requirement for such a verification is not part of the linguistic requirements provided in s. 530.1g) of the Criminal Code. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT : [7] DISMISSES the appeal. NICOLE DUVAL HESLER, C.J.Q. LORNE GIROUX, J.A. JACQUES A. LÉGER, J.A.