Subsequent Cases which Uphold the Right to Understand

Since the R. v. Evans decision, many cases have been built on this precedent. While most uphold the right to understand of people in Canada who suffer from mental or developmental disabilities or whose first language is not English or French, the principles enshrined in these cases potentially are applicable to people with low literacy as well.

A few case examples are cited below.

R. v. Sawchuk¹⁵ Court of Queen's Bench, involved an accused who, according to expert medical evidence, suffered from mental retardation and an attention deficit disorder which affected his memory. Even though the police officer said that he knew the accused was of low intelligence, he did not simplify the language he used in delivering the standard police caution and advising the accused of the right to counsel. He did not ensure that the accused understood what he was told. The evidence of an expert was that the accused would not understand the concept of the police caution or the meaning of the word 'arson' contained in the charge. The judge ruled that, accordingly, his statements were not voluntary and not admissible in evidence.