R. v. K.F.
- Citation
- 2026 ONCA 357
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 14 May 2026
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction; Court of Appeal Decision on Fresh Evidence and Remedy (new Trial)
- Language
- English
More details
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Decision
- 14 May 2026
- Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction; Court of Appeal Decision on Fresh Evidence and Remedy (new Trial)
- Language
- English
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The Court accepted the Crown's concession that non-compliance with s.530(3) created a presumption of violation which the Crown could not rebut; the fresh evidence was admitted and, because the presumption stood, the conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered in French.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered in French.
Orders
- Admit the fresh evidence
- Quash the conviction
- Order a new trial to be held in French
- Publication ban under s.486.4 to remain in effect
02
Material facts
Parties
His Majesty the King
Respondent Counsel: Maria AnghelidisK.F.
Appellant Counsel: Colleen McKeown, Robert Nanni03
Procedural history
Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Conviction; Court of Appeal Decision on Fresh Evidence and Remedy (new Trial)
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the accused was informed of his right under s.530(3) to elect trial in French
- 02
Whether fresh evidence demonstrating lack of notice and willingness to elect French trial should be admitted
- 03
Whether non-compliance with s.530(3) gives rise to a presumption of violation and whether Crown can rebut that presumption
- 04
Appropriate remedy where presumption is not rebutted
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The appellant, a francophone, was not aware or informed of his right under s.530(3) of the Criminal Code to apply for a trial in French; he now seeks to adduce fresh evidence that he would have applied for a French trial had he known of the right and asks that the evidence be admitted and a new trial ordered.
- Respondent
- The Crown concedes it cannot rebut the presumption arising from non-compliance with s.530(3) and accepts the fresh evidence should be admitted; the Crown accepts the appeal should be allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered in French.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
R. v. Tayo Tompouba, 2024 SCC 16, 491 D.L.R. (4th) 195
Non-compliance with s.530(3) of the Criminal Code is an error of law giving rise to a presumption that the accused's right to be tried in the official language of choice was violated.
- 02
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s.686(1)(b)(iv) and appellate jurisprudence
The curative proviso in s.686(1)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Code can in some cases rebut errors, but the Crown bears the burden to do so.
- 03
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s.530(3)
Accused has statutory right to elect trial in French under s.530(3) of the Criminal Code and failure to inform may vitiate the fairness of the proceeding.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The Court accepted the Crown's concession that non-compliance with s.530(3) created a presumption of violation which the Crown could not rebut; the fresh evidence was admitted and, because the presumption stood, the conviction was quashed and a new trial ordered in French.
Obiter and limits
- This appeal is subject to a publication ban under s.486.4 of the Criminal Code.
- The Crown's concession on the applicability of the curative proviso was accepted by the Court.
Court disposition
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered in French.
- Admit the fresh evidence
- Quash the conviction
- Order a new trial to be held in French
- Publication ban under s.486.4 to remain in effect
Source and reliance status
Court of Appeal for Ontario · 14 May 2026
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Judgment· 14 May 2026
R. v. K.F. Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2026-05-14 Neutral citation 2026 ONCA 357 Docket numbers COA-24-CR-0502 Judges Huscroft, Grant; Roberts, Lois B.; Pomerance, Renee M. Subject Criminal Decision Content
COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: R. v. K.F., 2026 ONCA 357[1] DATE: 20260514 DOCKET: COA-24-CR-0502 Huscroft, Roberts and Pomerance JJ.A.
BETWEEN His Majesty the King Respondent and K.F. Appellant Colleen McKeown and Robert Nanni, for the appellant Maria Anghelidis, for the respondent Heard and rendered orally: May 6, 2026 On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice Jennifer D. Strasberg of the Ontario Court of Justice, on December 11, 2023.
REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The appellant is francophone. He seeks to adduce fresh evidence demonstrating that he was not aware or informed of his right under s. 530(3) of the Criminal Code to apply for a trial in French and that, had he known of his right, he would have applied for a trial in French. [2] As the Supreme Court held in R. v. Tayo Tompouba, 2024 SCC 16, 491 D.L.R. (4th) 195, non-compliance with s. 530(3) of the Criminal Code is an error of law that gives rise to a presumption that the accused’s right to be tried in the official language of his choice was violated. That is the case here. [3] The Crown fairly concedes that it cannot discharge its burden to rebut this presumption in this case through the curative proviso under s. 686(1)(b)(iv) of the Criminal Code. Accordingly, the Crown accepts that the fresh evidence should be admitted, the appeal should be allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered. [4] As a result, we accept the Crown’s concession, admit the fresh evidence, allow the appeal, quash the conviction and order a new trial in French. “Grant Huscroft J.A.” “L.B. Roberts J.A.” “R. Pomerance J.A.” [1] This appeal is subject to a publication ban pursuant to s. 486.4 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.