R. v. Caesar (J.)

• Jurisdiction: Northwest Territories
• Judge: Slatter, Tulloch and Veldhuis, JJ.A.
• Date: 20 January 2015
• Citation: (2015), 588 A.R. 392
• Court: Court of Appeal (Northwest Territories)

R. v. Caesar (J.) (2015), 588 A.R. 392; 626 W.A.C. 392 (NWTCA)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] A.R. TBEd. JA.165

Her Majesty the Queen (respondent) v. James Caesar (appellant)

(A-1-AP-2013-000008; 2015 NWTCA 4)

Indexed As: R. v. Caesar (J.)

Northwest Territories Court of Appeal

Slatter, Tulloch and Veldhuis, JJ.A.

January 20, 2015.

Summary:

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault. He appealed on the grounds that (1) his trial was unfair because Crown counsel included inappropriate remarks in his jury address; and (2) the trial court failed to advise him of his right to apply for a trial in either official language, as required by s. 530(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Civil Rights - Topic 2947

Language - Criminal proceedings - Right to trial in either official language - Caesar was found guilty of sexual assault - He appealed on the grounds that the trial court failed to advise him of his right to apply for a trial in either official language, as required by s. 530(3) of the Criminal Code - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Although proficiency in a particular language was not relevant to the entitlement to get notice, it was relevant to remedy - There was no indication that Caesar spoke or understood French, or would elect a trial in French if the appeal was allowed - There was no indication that Caesar did not fully understand the evidence in the English trial proceedings - He testified in English without difficulty - The failure to notify Caesar of his s. 530(3) right did not have a substantive effect on the fairness of his trial - See paragraphs 7 to 10.

Criminal Law - Topic 4419

Procedure - Opening and closing addresses - Summing up - Counsel - Closing address - Intemperate or improper statements - Caesar was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant on two occasions five years apart - His counsel argued that the jury should have a reasonable doubt because, inter alia, it made no sense for the complainant to return to Caesar's house after the first assault - In his address to the jury, Crown counsel responded by asking why a hockey player would go back to practice the day after being assaulted by a coach, or why an altar boy would go back to church after being assaulted by a priest - Caesar appealed his conviction, arguing that Crown counsel's remarks were inappropriate and resulted in an unfair trial - The Northwest Territories Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal - Since Caesar raised the issue of the complainant continuing to associate with him, it was fair and appropriate for the Crown to respond - Crown counsel's message was that there was no set standard as to what victims were supposed to do after being assaulted - This was a fair and relevant comment - These generic references did not undermine the overall fairness of the trial - See paragraphs 2 to 6.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Khan (M.A.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823; 279 N.R. 79; 160 Man.R.(2d) 161; 262 W.A.C. 161; 2001 SCC 86, refd to. [para. 3].

R. v. Lafferty (G.A.), [2012] A.R. Uned. 555; 2012 NWTCA 13, refd to. [para. 3].

Pisani v. R., [1971] S.C.R. 738, refd to. [para. 4].

R. v. MacKenzie (N.M.) (2004), 221 N.S.R.(2d) 51; 697 A.P.R. 51; 2004 NSCA 10, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Beaulac (J.V.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 768; 238 N.R. 131; 121 B.C.A.C. 227; 198 W.A.C. 227, refd to. [para. 8].

Counsel:

M. Lecorre, for the respondent;

S.A. Petitpas, for the appellant.

This appeal was heard on January 20, 2015, before Slatter, Tulloch and Veldhuis, JJ.A., of the Northwest Territories Court of Appeal. The following memorandum of judgment was delivered by the court on the same date.