Canada Case Law

R. v. McCormick

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

A purposive and contextual reading of ss.800(2) and 802.1 of the Criminal Code, supported by case law, establishes that lay agents may not represent accused persons in indictable proceedings; additionally the court may refuse a particular agent where the agent is a material witness or likely to be disruptive, therefore the application to permit a lay agent was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Lay representation
• Agent representation
• Criminal code s.800(2)
• Criminal code s.802.1
• Indictable offences
• Court's supervisory power over agents

Read case analysis

R. v. Lin

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The application for leave to appeal is dismissed because the issues raised are fact-specific findings about the reasonableness of a strip search and the quality of representation that do not raise questions of law of significance beyond the case and are not clearly wrong under the R. v. R.R. test.

Source excerpt

• Strip search
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Leave to appeal
• Fresh evidence
• Assault conviction
• Summary conviction appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. Hillman

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

A common sense reading of ss.800(2) and 802.1 demonstrates Parliament intended to limit lay representation to summary offences carrying no more than six months' imprisonment; it would be illogical to permit lay representation for indictable offences where Parliament has expressly limited it for more serious summary offences, therefore lay representation in indictable matters is not permitted and the application must be denied.

Source excerpt

• Lay representation
• Agents under criminal code s.800
• Mckenzie friend
• Controlled drugs and substances act s.7(1)

Read case analysis

R. v. Cox

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Even assuming jurisdiction to permit a non-lawyer agent on an appeal, the judge in Chambers properly exercised discretion to deny permission because the proposed agent, Lawrence R. Finck, is not a lawyer, has a documented history of dishonesty, contemptuous conduct and ineffective, rambling advocacy, and his appointment would be incompatible with the proper administration of justice; therefore the motion to permit him to act was dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Appointment of counsel under s.684 criminal code
• Role and admissibility of agents on appeal
• Jurisdiction of judge in chambers
• Disqualification of lay representatives

Read case analysis

R. v. Jacque

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

Assignment of counsel was denied because although the appellant lacked means and legal aid was unavailable, the appeal did not raise serious (non-frivolous) issues; the challenge to the trial judge's credibility findings lacked a basis to succeed on appeal, so counsel was not warranted under s. 684.

Source excerpt

• Assignment of counsel
• Section 684 criminal code
• Credibility assessment
• Legal aid

Read case analysis

TPG Technology Consulting Ltd. v. Canada

Court

Federal Court of Appeal

The motion to authorize a corporate officer to represent the corporation was dismissed because the appellant did not establish the "special circumstances" required by Rule 120 (no evidence of impecuniosity or comparable grounds); motions may be decided on written materials absent exceptional circumstances; the court therefore denied the oral hearing and granted procedural relief regarding the appeal book, extension and removal of counsel.

Source excerpt

• Corporate representation
• Authorization of non-lawyer representative
• Rule 120 federal courts rules
• Security for costs
• Impecuniosity

Read case analysis

Owners, Strata Plan LMS 3851 v. Homer Street Development Limited Partnership

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court allowed service on an absent plaintiff by ordinary mail to her last known address, but refused to delete her from the pleading without instructions or further order.

• Address for service
• Discontinuance
• Amendment of statement of claim
• Severance of claims
• Service-of-process
• Amendment-of-pleadings

Read case analysis

R. v. Briand

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The Court affirmed the convictions, ruled it was functus officio on the correctness of those convictions, granted counsel leave to withdraw, permitted the appellants to represent themselves limited to the sentence appeal, and directed that no further filings be made without leave and that the appellants adopt the appeal book and factum filed by counsel.

Source excerpt

• Fraud
• Withdrawal of counsel
• Self-representation
• Functus officio
• Leave to withdraw

Read case analysis

R. v. Sarpong

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The court directed appointment of counsel for the appellant pursuant to s.684 of the Criminal Code, ordered that the Crown pay the costs of counsel to be retained, and adjourned the appeal with a 30-day requirement that counsel be retained; Justice Doherty was assigned case management and the appeal will proceed if counsel is not retained within that period.

Source excerpt

• Court-appointed counsel under s.684 criminal code
• Disclosure to self-represented litigant
• Costs of counsel
• Case management

Read case analysis

R. v. Perkins

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to demonstrate a conflict of interest or resulting prejudice from trial counsel's conduct, the entry of an agreed statement of facts was a reasonable tactical decision that did not constitute inadequate representation, and the sentencing judge properly considered and reasonably rejected a conditional sentence.

Source excerpt

• Fresh evidence
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Conflict of interest
• Agreed statement of facts
• Conditional sentence

Read case analysis