Canada Case Law

R. v. McPherson

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

The appellant was not unreasonably denied counsel; the trial record shows he understood and meaningfully participated and received appropriate judicial assistance as a self-represented accused; the trial judge correctly instructed the jury on the mental element and the evidence supported a finding of mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt; and the probation order was lawful under s.731(1)(b) and not manifestly unfit given the offender’s mental health needs, so the convictions and sentence are upheld.

Source excerpt

• Uttering threats
• Rowbotham application
• Self-representation
• Mens rea
• Probation order
• Appeal procedure

Read case analysis

R. v. Bentley

Court

Supreme Court of British Columbia

The court upheld the search warrant on review, rejected the s. 8 challenge, found a s. 10(b) delay in access to counsel, and refused automatic excision.

• S.8 charter search and seizure
• S.10(b) right to counsel
• S.24(2) exclusion of evidence
• Information to obtain (ito) sufficiency and sourcing
• Review of search warrant (garofoli/araujo standard)
• Confidential informants

Read case analysis

R. v. Newman

Court

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal

Application for appointment of counsel under s. 684 was dismissed because the applicant raised new grounds (ineffective assistance/fresh evidence) that were not before Legal Aid when it refused counsel, so he cannot satisfy the statutory requirement that Legal Aid be unable to provide representation for those grounds without first seeking amendment and reconsideration by Legal Aid.

Source excerpt

• Section 684 criminal code
• Appointment of counsel
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Fresh evidence
• Amendment of notice of appeal

Read case analysis

R. v. Eid

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Both motions were dismissed: bail pending appeal was refused because there was no material change in circumstances since the prior denial; appointment of counsel was refused because the appellant failed to establish he lacked sufficient means to retain counsel despite the appeal not being devoid of merit.

Source excerpt

• Bail pending appeal
• Appointment of counsel
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Means test for court-appointed counsel

Read case analysis

R. v. Kobylanski

Court

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia

The judge exercised discretion to grant a limited adjournment to permit the accused to retain counsel because self-representation at a complex three-week jury trial would likely impede full answer and defence; the adjournment was granted with a clear admonition that adjournments are limited and repeated discharge of counsel may force self-representation.

Source excerpt

• Adjournment
• Self-representation
• Right to counsel
• Jury trial
• Trial scheduling

Read case analysis

R. v. Colbourne

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The application was granted because the court concluded that assignment of counsel was necessary in the interests of justice given the Crown appeal and its potential legal complexity combined with the appellant's limited financial means and inability to obtain legal aid.

Source excerpt

• Assignment of counsel
• Section 684(1) criminal code
• Interests of justice
• Crown appeal
• Acquittal

Read case analysis

R. v. Ebagua

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The Court allowed the appeal because ineffective assistance of counsel undermined the validity of the verdict and rendered the trial procedures unfair, producing a miscarriage of justice; consequently the conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

Source excerpt

• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Procedural fairness
• Grounds for new trial
• Validity of verdict

Read case analysis

Ghanem v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)

Court

Federal Court

Federal Court dismissed judicial review of a Refugee Protection Division decision, finding the credibility assessment reasonable and no procedural fairness breach from translation or counsel incompetence.

• Convention refugee claim
• Person in need of protection
• Procedural fairness
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Translation/interpretation issues
• Standard of review

Read case analysis

R. c. Simard

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The pleas were not informed because defence counsel failed to disclose and explain the English police brief and the admissions in it that established aggravating factors triggering the mandatory nine‑month sentence, and because the appellants' limited English and inadequate translation prevented understanding; the trial judge failed to inquire into voluntariness; accordingly convictions were set aside and a new trial ordered.

Source excerpt

• Guilty plea
• Mandatory minimum sentence
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Language barrier
• New trial

Read case analysis

R. v. Giovannini

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

The Court exercised its discretion under s.684 of the Criminal Code and appointed counsel because the issues on appeal involved mixed questions of fact and law and the applicant had a limited ability to address those issues, making assistance of counsel warranted.

Source excerpt

• Appointment of counsel under s.684
• Judicial interim release
• Denial of legal aid
• Mixed questions of fact and law

Read case analysis