La police est tenue d'être proactive lorsqu'elle constate objectivement que le détenu ne comprend pas son droit à l'avocat & le simple fait pour un détenu de dire qu'il veut parler à sa femme n'est pas suffisant pour forcer la police à donner suite à cette demande

R. v. Magalong, 2013 BCCA 478

Lien vers la décision

[28]        These cases all affirm the importance of the detainee’s understanding of his or her right as central to the detainee’s ability to exercise that right. In the context of language issues, it will often be apparent that the detainee does not understand. In other circumstances, however, a detainee may have facility in English, but better facility in his or her first language. If that case is so, it still may be possible that a detainee understands the information provided, in which case there can be no complaint by the detainee he or she did not receive the mandatory Charter warnings in the language of his or her choice. Where, however, the detainee does not understand, a question arises whether the police should have done more to ensure comprehension. I understand the jurisprudence I have just referred to requires police to do more where there is, objectively, something about the circumstances that positively indicate a lack of comprehension.

[33]        Nor in my view was the denial of Mr. Magalong’s request to speak to his wife a breach of his Charter right to counsel. As in R. v. K.W.J., the reasoning in which I would adopt, Mr. Magalong did not tell the police that he wanted to contact his wife to ask her to contact counsel for him. In these circumstances, denying Mr. Magalong’s single simple request to contact his wife does not establish a Charter violation.