R v Parenteau, 2023 NBKB 129
| [53] Prior to the trial, the accused filed an Application for a declaration that his Charter rights had been breached. He alleged that Cpl. Langis did not have reasonable and probable grounds for demanding a breath sample (both at the roadside and in accordance with s. 230.28 of the Criminal Code), in violation of s. 8; that he was arbitrarily detained, in violation of s. 9; and that his language rights were not respected because some of his interactions with police occurred in English, notwithstanding that he identified French as the language in which he wanted to be served, in violation of ss. 19 and 20 of the Charter. He asked for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) or that the evidence (the Certificate of Qualified Technician) be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter. | [53] Avant le procès, l’accusé a déposé une requête dans laquelle était sollicitée une déclaration portant que ses droits garantis par la Charte avaient été violés. Il a fait valoir que le cap. Langis n’avait pas de motifs raisonnables et probables pour exiger un échantillon d’haleine (tant en bord de route qu’au titre de [l’art. 320.28] du Code criminel), et qu’il y a donc eu violation de l’art. 8; qu’il a été arbitrairement détenu, en violation de l’art. 9; et que ses droits linguistiques n’ont pas été respectés, car certaines de ses communications avec la police se sont déroulées en anglais, malgré le fait qu’il avait indiqué vouloir être servi en français, en violation des art. 19 et 20 de la Charte. Il a demandé la suspension de l’instance au titre du par. 24(1) ou l’exclusion de la preuve (le certificat de technicien qualifié) au titre de l’art. 24(2) de la Charte. | |
| Note: Mr. Parenteau’s trial proceeded in French, and the Crown filed its Notice of Appeal in French. Yet, for some reason, both Crown and Defence submitted written briefs in English and argued at the hearing in English. Further, counsel for Mr. Parenteau indicated that the Court should issue its decision in English. In my view, these reasons should, at the very least, be released in both official languages. However, given that a new trial is ordered, and given this Court’s concerns over further delays, these reasons are being released in English only, with a French translation to follow. |
|
|
