Canada Case Law

McCotter v. Mission Institution (Warden)

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court has no jurisdiction under s.684 of the Criminal Code because the habeas corpus proceedings and related appeal are civil in nature (challenging prison administration and parole-related decisions rather than the validity of the warrant of committal); there is no statutory or rule-based authority for a justice of this Court to appoint state-funded counsel in a civil appeal; G.(J.) is distinguishable and does not authorize appointment here; accordingly the application for appointment of counsel is dismissed.

Source excerpt

• Appointment of counsel
• Habeas corpus
• Section 684 criminal code
• Section 7 charter
• Jurisdiction to appoint counsel
• State-funded counsel

Read case analysis

A.C. v. D.W.

Court

Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal

Application dismissed because no legal rule supports appointment of state-funded counsel in private family law appeals, the Charter was not engaged by government action in this private dispute, and applying the rule 40(2) factors the Court found appointment unwarranted as the issues were not novel or complex and the applicant was capable of effective self-representation.

Source excerpt

• Appointment of counsel
• Right to counsel
• Self-representation
• Best interests of the child
• Section 7 charter rights
• Court rules (rule 40)

Read case analysis

R. v. T.E.C.

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal granted an extension of time to appeal but refused appointed counsel and bail pending appeal, finding no realistic prospect of success.

• Sexual assault
• Appointment of counsel
• Extension of time to appeal
• Bail pending appeal
• Publication ban
• Ineffective assistance of counsel

Read case analysis

Tavender v. Giltrow

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal granted a no fee order, but refused leave to appeal, a stay, and appointment of counsel. Most of the chambers order was unappealable.

• Want of prosecution
• Case management and sequencing
• Leave to appeal
• No fee order
• Security for costs
• Appointment of counsel

Read case analysis

R. v. Schmidt

Court

Yukon Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal of Yukon dismissed an application to appoint counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code, finding the appellant had not shown insufficient means.

• Appointment of counsel
• Legal aid/financial eligibility
• Section 684 criminal code
• Appeal procedure
• Impaired driving
• Appointment-of-counsel

Read case analysis

R. v. Dickins

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal refused counsel for the conviction appeal but appointed counsel for the sentence appeal in a sexual offences case, finding no realistic prospect of success on conviction.

• Appointment of counsel
• Ineffective assistance of counsel
• Appeal from conviction
• Appeal from sentence
• Disclosure
• Search and seizure

Read case analysis

R. v. Dancho

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia dismissed an application to appoint counsel under s. 684 of the Criminal Code because the proposed appeal lacked merit.

• Appointment of counsel
• Extension of time to appeal
• Summary conviction appeal
• Guilty plea
• Miscarriage of justice
• Legal aid

Read case analysis

R. v. Rashid

Court

British Columbia Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia appointed counsel for the appellant’s conviction appeal under s. 684 of the Criminal Code, finding the appeal arguable and in the interests of justice.

• Appointment of counsel
• S. 684 criminal code
• Ncrmd (s.16)
• Mens rea for murder
• Parole ineligibility
• Appointment-of-counsel

Read case analysis

R. v. Nassr

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

On the existing record the applicant lacks the financial means to retain counsel, has at least one arguable ground of appeal (including the trial judge's handling and jurisdictional ruling on the abuse of process application), and cannot effectively advance the appeal without counsel; therefore appointment of publicly funded counsel under s.684(1) is in the interests of justice and the motion is granted without delay pending the outcome of the Legal Aid appeal.

Source excerpt

• Appointment of counsel
• S.684(1) criminal code
• Legal aid funding
• Self-represented litigants
• Abuse of process
• Jurisdiction post-verdict

Read case analysis

Mouralian v. Groleau

Court

Court of Appeal for Ontario

The motion was dismissed because no authority was shown for appointing a 'litigation guardian counsel' and, alternatively, the medical evidence did not provide the required opinion that the applicant was mentally incapable under Rule 7.04(1)(b) and the Substitute Decisions Act.

Source excerpt

• Litigation guardian
• Appointment of counsel
• Rule 7.04(1)
• Mental incapacity
• Medical evidence
• Costs

Read case analysis