R. v. Canning

R. v. Canning

The Rowbotham application is denied because the accused failed to demonstrate indigence and that he cannot obtain a fair trial without counsel: he provided incomplete financial disclosure, divested significant assets to his wife after charges were laid (foreclosing private funding), and did not exhaust reasonable alternatives; however, under s.486.3 counsel is appointed to cross-examine two complainants (E.L. and C.L.).

Citation
2010 NSPC 59
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Kenneth Paul Canning
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Sexual Offences / Pre Trial — Rowbotham Application and S.486.3 Application (no Trial Dates Set)
Outcome
Rowbotham application denied; accused likely self-represented at trial; s.486.3 appointment of counsel granted to conduct cross-examination of complainants E.L. and C.L.; parties to make submissions on implementation 28 September 2010.
Legal Topics
Right to Counsel, Rowbotham Application, Stay of Proceedings, Section 486.3 Counsel Appointment, Indigence, Self Representation, Asset Transfer/separation Agreement
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Legal Aid/access to Counsel Right to Counsel Rowbotham Application Stay of Proceedings Section 486.3 Counsel Appointment Indigence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Kenneth Paul Canning

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal — Sexual Offences / Pre Trial — Rowbotham Application and S.486.3 Application (no Trial Dates Set)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused is indigent for purposes of a Rowbotham order
  2. 2 Whether the accused cannot receive a fair trial without state-funded counsel
  3. 3 Whether the accused exhausted all reasonable routes to obtain counsel (Legal Aid/private)

Ratio Decidendi

The Rowbotham application is denied because the accused failed to demonstrate indigence and that he cannot obtain a fair trial without counsel: he provided incomplete financial disclosure, divested significant assets to his wife after charges were laid (foreclosing private funding), and did not exhaust reasonable alternatives; however, under s.486.3 counsel is appointed to cross-examine two complainants (E.L. and C.L.).

Court Disposition

Rowbotham application denied; accused likely self-represented at trial; s.486.3 appointment of counsel granted to conduct cross-examination of complainants E.L. and C.L.; parties to make submissions on implementation 28 September 2010.

Orders

  • Application for a stay of proceedings (Rowbotham) denied
  • Under Criminal Code s.486.3, appoint counsel to conduct cross-examination of complainants E.L. and C.L.