2011 NBCA 24, 2011 NBCA 24

COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK 61-10-CA ÉRIC BUJOLD APPELLANT ÉRIC BUJOLD APPELANT - and - - et - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN RESPONDENT SA MAJESTÉ LA REINE INTIMÉE Bujold v. R., 2011 NBCA 24 Bujold c.

R., 2011 NBCA 24 CORAM: The Honourable Chief Justice Drapeau The Honourable Justice Larlee The Honourable Justice Deschênes CORAM : L’honorable juge en chef Drapeau L’honorable juge Larlee L’honorable juge Deschênes Appeal from a decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench sitting on appeal from the Provincial Court: March 16, 2010 Appel d’une décision de la Cour du Banc de la Reine rendue dans le cadre d’un appel d’une décision de la Cour provinciale : Le 16 mars 2010 History of Case: Historique de la cause : Decision under appeal: Unreported Décision frappée d’appel : Inédite Preliminary or incidental proceedings: N/A Procédures préliminaires ou accessoires : s.o.

Appeal heard: February 9, 2011 Appel entendu : Le 9 février 2011 Judgment rendered: March 24, 2011 Jugement rendu : Le 24 mars 2011

Counsel at hearing: For the appellant: Larry Landry For the respondent: C. Gabriel Bourgeois, Q.C. Avocats à l’audience : Pour l’appelant : Larry Landry Pour l’intimée : C. Gabriel Bourgeois, c.r. THE COURT The appellant’s appeal based on the contention that the violation of his language rights justifies vacating his conviction is rejected and his application for leave to appeal with respect to the other two grounds of appeal is dismissed.

LA COUR Déboute l’appelant de son appel fondé sur la prétention que la violation de ses droits linguistiques justifie l’annulation de sa déclaration de culpabilité et rejette sa demande en autorisation d’appel à l’égard des deux autres moyens d’appel. English version of the judgment delivered by THE COURT I. Introduction [ 1 ] Éric Bujold seeks leave to appeal the dismissal, by a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench, of his appeal against conviction for operating a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit ( s. 253(1) (

b) of the Criminal Code ). In his Notice of Appeal, Mr. Bujold asks this Court to set aside his

summary offence conviction and direct a verdict of acquittal, or, alternatively, order a new trial. No other relief is sought in the Notice of Appeal. Although Mr. Bujold raises three grounds of appeal, only one justifies leave to appeal within the meaning of s. 839(1), i.e., the ground alleging that his language rights guaranteed under s. 530.1(

e) were violated in Provincial Court. [ 2 ] On Mr. Bujold’s application, in accordance with s. 530, a judge of the Provincial Court ordered that he be tried before a judge who speaks French. On the date set for hearing witnesses, Crown counsel, speaking solely in English, presented a motion to adjourn. After indicating to the judge how “disappointed” his client was that the motion had been made in an official language other than his own, defence counsel opposed the motion to adjourn and the judge ruled in his favour. The witnesses were heard a few hours later, without any application being made to the judge for redress for the violation of s. 530.1(

e) that was raised on appeal. Ultimately, the trial ended with the guilty verdict which Mr. Bujold contests, another Crown counsel having provided services exclusively in French at the hearing of the witnesses and in all other proceedings that followed. II. Legislative provisions [ 3 ] A copy of the legislative provisions mentioned in these reasons for judgment is attached as

Schedule “A”. III. Analysis and decision

[4] In R. v. McGraw, 2007 NBCA 11, 312 N.B.R. (2d) 142, the Court emphasized the importance of languagerights in New Brunswick through the following statements: I would wrap up the proceedings by echoing the

summary conviction appeal judge’s emphasis on the importance of linguistic rights inNew Brunswick, the only Province with two official languages. Language rights, whether sourced in the Charter, the Official LanguagesAct or POPA, set us apart in the Canadian federation; as time goes by, more and more of our citizens proudly view those rights as whatdefines them as New Brunswickers.

Hopefully, the outcome of these proceedings will bring home to peace officers engaged in theenforcement of provincial legislation that language rights are infrangible. [para. 35] Nothing in the reasons that follow should be construed, in any way, as being at variance with that assessment of the importance thatshould be attached to language rights in this jurisdiction. [5] In addition to guaranteeing certain language rights to the accused, s. 530 imposes “positive obligations” onCrown counsel and on the courts (see Language Rights in Canada, 2nd ed. (Cowansville (Qc.): Yvon Blais, 2004), at p. 199, and R. v.Beaulac, (SCC), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768, [1999] S.C.J.

No. 25 (QL)). A complementary provision, s. 530.1, defines thescope of the rights and obligations arising from an order made under s. 530. Thus, under s. 530.1(

e) the accused is entitled to have aCrown prosecutor who speaks the official language specified in the order granted under s. 530. That provision is central to the issue onappeal. [6] The respondent concedes, rightly in our view, that s. 530.1(

e) applies to a motion to adjourn made prior tohearing witnesses at trial or at a preliminary inquiry. As the judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench noted, the wording of this provisiondoes not limit its application to the preliminary inquiry and/or to the trial, as is the case under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (

f) and (g).Logically, if Parliament had intended to confine the application of s. 530.1(

e) to the preliminary inquiry or to the trial, it would have usedwording to this effect, as it did in the other paragraphs listed above. [7] Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the Attorney General plays an essential role in ensuring that the rightconferred under s. 530.1(

e) is respected. In this regard, we endorse the opinion expressed by Justice Biron, for the Quebec Court ofAppeal, in R. v. Cross, [1998] Q.J.

No. 2629 (C.A.) (QL), where he states that s. 530.1 imposes on the Attorney General “the obligationto assign the conduct of a case where an order has been made under s. 530 of the Criminal Code, to a Crown counsel capable of speakingthe official language of the accused and who consents to doing so” (para. 42). [8] Needless to say, it is not enough that Crown counsel be able to speak the official language of the accused; themandate conferred upon Crown counsel requires that he or she speak the official language specified in any order made under s. 530.Finally, although it is true that s. 19(2) of the Charter recognizes that any person has the right to use either official language in anymatter before the courts in New Brunswick, Crown counsel waives this right when he or she accepts to act on behalf of the AttorneyGeneral in any proceeding with respect to which an order under s. 530 has been made. [9] That said, as Justice Charron, now a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, indicated in R. v.

M.P., (ON CA), [2004] O.J. No. 2550 (C.A.) (QL), [TRANSLATION] “[a] trial will not necessarily be vitiated every time a fewwords are spoken in an official language other than that of the accused” (para. 37). In this case, the violation was of short duration andthe trial judge acceded to the accused’s objection to the adjournment motion.

Moreover, the accused did not consider the violation to hislanguage rights was sufficiently serious to seek redress at once and the prosecutor who replaced the one who committed the breach spokeexclusively in French at the hearing of witnesses a few hours later. [10] Although we readily acknowledge the violation of Mr.

Bujold’s right guaranteed under s. 530.1(e), we are ofthe view that the relief sought in the Notice of Appeal is disproportionate to the seriousness of the violation, which we deem to berelatively minor given the circumstances as a whole, including the scrupulous adherence to the provisions of s. 530.1 throughout everyaspect of the remainder of the proceedings, notably the hearing of witnesses at trial. IV. Disposition [11] For the foregoing reasons, Mr.

Bujold’s appeal based on the contention that a violation of his language rightsjustifies vacating his conviction is rejected and his application for leave to appeal with respect to the other two grounds of appeal isdismissed.

______________________________________ J. Ernest Drapeau, Juge en chef du Nouveau-Brunswick _______________________________________ M.E.L. Larlee, j.c.a. ________________________________________ Alexandre Deschênes, j.c.a

SCHEDULE A /

ANNEXE A Section 19(2) of the Charter : Le paragraphe 19(2) de la Charte : Proceedings in New Brunswick courts

(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick Procédures devant les tribunaux du Nouveau- Brunswick

(2) Chacun a le droit d’employer le français ou l’anglais dans toutes les affaires dont sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Brunswick et dans tous les actes de procédure qui en découlent. Sections 530(1) and 530.1 of the Criminal Code : Le paragraphe 530(1) et l’

article 530.1 du Code criminel 530.

(1) On application by an accused whose language is one of the official languages of Canada , made not later than (

a) the time of the appearance of the accused at which his trial date is set, if (

i) he is accused of an offence mentioned in

section 553 or punishable on

summary conviction, or (ii) the accused is to be tried on an indictment preferred under

section 577, (

b) the time of the accused’s election, if the 530.

(1) Sur demande d’un accusé dont la langue est l’une des langues officielles du Canada, faite au plus tard :

a) au moment où la date du procès est fixée : (

i) s’il est accusé d’une infraction mentionnée à l’article 553 ou punissable sur déclaration de culpabilité par procédure

sommaire, (ii) si l’accusé doit être jugé sur un acte d’accusation présenté en vertu de l’article 577;

b) au moment de son choix, s’il choisit de subir son procès devant un juge de la cour provinciale en vertu de l’article 536 ou d’être jugé par un juge sans jury et sans enquête

accused elects under

section 536 to be tried by a provincial court judge or under

section 536.1 to be tried by a judge without a jury and without having a preliminary inquiry, or (

c) the time when the accused is ordered to stand trial, if the accused (

i) is charged with an offence listed in

section 469, (ii) has elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge or a judge and jury, or (iii) is deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury, a justice of the peace, provincial court judge or judge of the Nunavut Court of Justice shall grant an order directing that the accused be tried before a justice of the peace, provincial court judge, judge or judge and jury, as the case may be, who speak the official language of Canada that is the language of the accused or, if the circumstances warrant, who speak both official languages of Canada. […] 530.1 If an order is granted under

section 530 , (

a) the accused and his counsel have the right to use either official language for all purposes during the preliminary inquiry and trial of the accused; (

b) the accused and his counsel may use either official language in written pleadings or other documents used in any proceedings relating to the preliminary inquiry or trial of the accused; (

c) any witness may give evidence in either official language during the preliminary inquiry or trial; ( c.1 ) the presiding justice or judge may, if the préliminaire en vertu de l’article 536.1;

c) au moment où il est renvoyé pour subir son procès : (

i) s’il est accusé d’une infraction mentionnée à l’article 469, (ii) s’il a choisi d’être jugé par un tribunal composé d’un juge seul ou d’un juge et d’un jury, (iii) s’il est réputé avoir choisi d’être jugé par un tribunal composé d’un juge et d’un jury, un juge de paix, un juge de la cour provinciale ou un juge de la Cour de justice du Nunavut ordonne que l’accusé subisse son procès devant un juge de paix, un juge de la cour provinciale, un juge seul ou un juge et un jury, selon le cas, qui parlent la langue officielle du Canada qui est celle de l’accusé ou, si les circonstances le justifient, qui parlent les deux langues officielles du Canada. […] 530.1 Si une ordonnance est rendue en vertu de l’

article 530 :

a) l’accusé et son avocat ont le droit d’employer l’une ou l’autre langue officielle au cours de l’enquête préliminaire et du procès;

b) ils peuvent utiliser l’une ou l’autre langue officielle dans les actes de procédure ou autres documents de l’enquête préliminaire et du procès;

c) les témoins ont le droit de témoigner dans l’une ou l’autre langue officielle à l’enquête préliminaire et au procès; c.1 ) le juge de paix ou le juge qui préside peut, si les circonstances le justifient, autoriser le poursuivant à interroger ou contre-interroger un témoin dans la langue officielle de ce dernier même si cette langue n’est pas celle de l’accusé ni celle qui permet

circumstances warrant, authorize the prosecutor to examine or cross-examine a witness in the official language of the witness even though it is not that of the accused or that in which the accused can best give testimony; (

d) the accused has a right to have a justice presiding over the preliminary inquiry who speaks the official language of the accused or both official languages, as the case may be; (

e) the accused has a right to have a prosecutor — other than a private prosecutor — who speaks the official language of the accused or both official languages, as the case may be; (

f) the court shall make interpreters available to assist the accused, his counsel or any witness during the preliminary inquiry or trial; (

g) the record of proceedings during the preliminary inquiry or trial shall include (

i) a transcript of everything that was said during those proceedings in the official language in which it was said, (ii) a transcript of any

interpretation into the other official language of what was said, and (iii) any documentary evidence that was tendered during those proceedings in the official language in which it was tendered; and (

h) any trial judgment, including any reasons given therefor, issued in writing in either official language, shall be made available by the court in the official language that is the language of the accused. à ce dernier de témoigner le plus facilement;

d) l’accusé a droit à ce que le juge de paix présidant l’enquête préliminaire parle la même langue officielle que lui ou les deux langues officielles, selon le cas;

e) l’accusé a droit à ce que le poursuivant — quand il ne s’agit pas d’un poursuivant privé — parle la même langue officielle que lui ou les deux langues officielles, selon le cas;

f) le tribunal est tenu d’offrir des services d’interprétation à l’accusé, à son avocat et aux témoins tant à l’enquête préliminaire qu’au procès;

g) le dossier de l’enquête préliminaire et celui du procès doivent comporter la totalité des débats dans la langue officielle originale et la transcription de l’interprétation, ainsi que toute la preuve documentaire dans la langue officielle de sa présentation à l’audience;

h) le tribunal assure la disponibilité, dans la langue officielle qui est celle de l’accusé, du jugement — exposé des motifs compris — rendu par écrit dans l’une ou l’autre langue officielle.