R. v. Heinekamp
The court exercised its discretion to adjourn the appeal and ordered the appointment of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Code to ensure the appellant, who was in custody and had not received materials in time and had been subject to an administrative mix-up, would have representation for the rescheduled hearing.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- C44469
- Parties
- Respondent: Her Majesty the Queen; Appellant: Anthony Heinekamp; Amicus Curiae: Paul Burstein
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 28 July 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Appeal — Adjournment and Appointment of Counsel (court of Appeal)
- Outcome
- Appeal adjourned and counsel to be appointed for the appellant pursuant to the Criminal Code.
- Legal Topics
- Adjournment, Appointment of Counsel, Amicus Curiae, Right to Counsel
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Her Majesty the Queen
Respondent
Anthony Heinekamp
Appellant
Paul Burstein
Amicus Curiae
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Appeal — Adjournment and Appointment of Counsel (court of Appeal)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an adjournment should be granted due to an administrative mix-up resulting in amicus curiae being appointed instead of counsel for the appellant
- 2 Whether counsel should be appointed for an accused in custody pursuant to the Criminal Code
- 3 Whether the appellant had adequate time and materials (factums and appeal book) to proceed
Ratio Decidendi
The court exercised its discretion to adjourn the appeal and ordered the appointment of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Code to ensure the appellant, who was in custody and had not received materials in time and had been subject to an administrative mix-up, would have representation for the rescheduled hearing.
Court Disposition
Appeal adjourned and counsel to be appointed for the appellant pursuant to the Criminal Code.
Orders
- Matter adjourned to September 8, 2006.
- Order made pursuant to the Criminal Code appointing counsel for Mr. Heinekamp; the name of counsel to be inserted as soon as advised by Mr. Heinekamp and confirmed by counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
R. v. Heinekamp Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2006-07-28 Docket numbers C44469 Judges Simmons, Janet M.; Armstrong, Robert Patrick; Rouleau, Paul S. Subject Criminal Decision Content DATE: 20060727 DOCKET: C44469 COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO RE: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN (Respondent) – and – ANTHONY HEINEKAMP (Appellant) BEFORE: SIMMONS, ARMSTRONG AND ROULEAU JJ.A. COUNSEL: In person (in custody) for the appellant Grace Choi for the Crown respondent Paul Burstein Amicus Curiae HEARD & ENDORSED: July 27, 2006 On appeal from the decision of Justice H.R. Locke of the Superior Court of Justice dated October 13, 2005. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] It appears that as a result of an administrative mix-up, amicus curiae was appointed when in fact Mr. Heinekamp desired counsel. Mr. Heinekamp requests an adjournment today as he just received the factums of the Crown and amicus yesterday and does not have the appeal book. Further he did not understand that amicus was not his counsel. [2] In all the circumstances, this matter is adjourned to September 8, 2006 and an order is made pursuant to the Criminal Code appointing counsel for Mr. Heinekamp with the name of counsel to be inserted as soon as advised by Mr. Heinekamp and confirmed by counsel. Counsel may, if advised, request that the date be changed to September 13, 2006.