David McCarthy

Media organizations sought certiorari to quash a provincial court judge’s order imposing a partial publication ban and denying access to a video exhibit tendered during a guilty plea for obstruction of justice arising from a detention-centre death.

The applicants argued that the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction and that the order failed the Dagenais/Mentuck test.

The Superior Court held that the judge presiding over the guilty plea had jurisdiction to consider and grant a publication ban related to the proceeding before him.

The court found that the partial ban appropriately balanced open court principles with the fair trial rights of co‑accused facing related charges.

The court concluded that the order was necessary to prevent a real and substantial risk to the proper administration of justice and that no error of law appeared on the face of the record.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings and an order requiring state-funded counsel under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms following denial of Legal Aid funding, commonly known as a Rowbotham application.

The accused faced charges under the Highway Traffic Act for willfully failing to stop for police, which carried a possible minimum custodial sentence.

Although the Crown conceded that the accused had exhausted Legal Aid appeals and was indigent, it argued that counsel was not essential to ensure a fair trial.

The court held that the charges were regulatory in nature, the trial would be brief with discrete issues, and the accused demonstrated an ability to understand and participate in proceedings.

The court concluded that representation by counsel was not essential to a fair trial and dismissed the application.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application under ss. 7 and 24(1) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings until the Attorney General or Legal Aid Ontario funded her defence on a charge of assault causing bodily harm.

Although the accused had exhausted appeals within Legal Aid Ontario, the court found she failed to demonstrate that state-funded counsel was essential to ensure a fair trial.

The charge was relatively straightforward, the trial expected to be brief, and the accused demonstrated an ability to understand the proceedings and participate effectively.

The court emphasized that incarceration risk alone does not justify state-funded counsel and that trial judges can assist self‑represented accused to ensure fairness.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking a stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided.

The accused had been refused legal aid after failing to execute a contribution agreement assigning confiscated funds, but evidence showed the refusal resulted from confusing and misleading notices issued by the legal aid plan.

The court found the accused was indigent, unable to retain counsel privately, and faced serious drug charges with potential incarceration and complex Charter issues.

Given the likelihood that self-representation would compromise trial fairness, the court held that state funding was required.

The proceedings were conditionally stayed to allow the Attorney General of Canada to arrange funding for counsel covering pre‑trial proceedings and trial.