Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- ns:r._c._gaudet_1995_canlii_4525_ns_sc [2026/08/08 22:22] – victorzhou
+++ ns:r._c._gaudet_1995_canlii_4525_ns_sc [2026/08/21 22:42] (current) – victorzhou
@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 **DECISION:** February 28, 1995
-**COUNSEL:** Hazen Brian, for the appellent \\
+**COUNSEL:** Hazen Brian, for the appellant \\
 Paul Bychok, for the respondent
@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 On the other hand, during their closing argument, the defence argued that exhibit P-1, the certificate of analysis, had to be translated into French since that was the trial language. In support of this proposition, the defence cited the decision in //Boudreau// from the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick. The prosecution and the judge admitted they were not aware of such a requirement. After hearing extensive submissions on the topic, the judge adjourned the trial to October 28 and asked counsel for written submissions on the topic.
-The trial continued on October 28. The found that, in order to be admitted as evidence against Mr. Gaudet, the certificate of analysis had to be translated into French. In doing so, the judge accepted the defence's submissions and the prosecution's admission.
+The trial continued on October 28. The judge found that, in order to be admitted as evidence against Mr. Gaudet, the certificate of analysis had to be translated into French. In doing so, the judge accepted the defence's submissions and the prosecution's admission.
-On his own motion and without consulting the prosecution, the judge reopened the trial to allow the reading of the certificate of analysis and its translation into French by the interpreter, which would corrected the error committed on June 24.
+On his own motion and without consulting the prosecution, the judge reopened the trial to allow the reading of the certificate of analysis and its translation into French by the interpreter, which would correct the error committed on June 24.
 The judge accepted that responsibility for failing to allow the reading and translation of the certificate of analysis by the interpreter during the June 24 trial. Officer Richardson was not present on October 28 during the reading and translation of the certificate. The defence therefore did not cross-examine the witness. However, the judge invited the defence to present evidence, make argument and provide comments on the procedure that was followed to correct the June 24 error. The defence did not make any requests or provide any comments.