R c. Heaney, 2024 QCCS 940
[1] The accused are charged with two counts pertaining to bribing foreign public officials (s. 3 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act) and one count of fraud (s. 380 of the Criminal Code). The Crown has filed a direct indictment and the jury trial is scheduled for three weeks beginning October 28, 2024. The Court must determine whether, pursuant to section 530(5) of the Criminal Code, the trial should be held in both official languages of Canada. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that such an order must be made.
[2] The accused Timothy Heaney and Robert Walsh are anglophones. On October 12, 2023, they requested to be tried before an English-speaking judge and jury. The accused René Bélanger is francophone. On the same date, he requested to be tried before a judge and jury who speak both official languages. Mr. Bélanger wants his lawyer to be able to plead and be understood in French without the filter of interpretation. He also wants to be understood in his mother tongue without the filter of interpretation if he decides to testify during the proceedings.
[3] The Crown submits that the circumstances of this case warrant an order directing that the three accused be tried before a bilingual judge and jury. The Crown contends that the accused were part of a joint and common enterprise when they allegedly committed the offences for which they are charged. The Crown argues that the terms and purpose of s. 530 of the Criminal Code and the decisions rendered in Gagnon c. R.[1] and R. c. Charron[2] support their argument that the trial must be held before a judge and jury who speak both official languages.
[...]
[6] Section 530(5) of the Criminal Code holds that “if the circumstances warrant”, the Court can order that a trial be held before a bilingual judge and jury. Section 530(6), which was incorporated in the Criminal Code in 2008, deals with one of the circumstances that may warrant such an order:
530. […]
Circumstances warranting order directing trial in both official languages
(6) The facts that two or more accused who are to be tried together are each entitled to be tried before a justice of the peace, provincial court judge, judge or judge and jury who speak one of the official languages of Canada and that those official languages are different may constitute circumstances that warrant that an order be granted directing that they be tried before a justice of the peace, provincial court judge, judge or judge and jury who speak both official languages of Canada. (Emphasis added)
[7] A review of the case law relating to this provision reveals that bilingual trials have been ordered in cases where, as in this case, two or more co-accused have requested that their trial be conducted in two different official languages of Canada. It must be noted that a bilingual trial order does not depend on the consent of the parties but rather on the circumstances of each case. Section 530 of the Criminal Code states that when deciding if a bilingual trial is warranted, a Court must consider “the circumstances of the case”, including that set out in s. 530(6) as cited above. Parliament has therefore provided that a bilingual trial may be ordered despite the objection of an accused.
