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.