Jacob Stillman

The applicant, charged with fraud over $5,000, sought reconsideration of a prior decision denying a stay of proceedings pending the appointment of state-funded counsel under a Rowbotham order.

The court reconsidered the issue after receiving additional evidence regarding the proceeds of the applicant’s home sale and psychiatric evidence concerning his ability to represent himself.

Although the court accepted that the applicant appeared indigent and lacked access to the sale proceeds, the psychiatric evidence remained insufficient and procedurally deficient to establish that he could not conduct his own defence.

The applicant failed to properly introduce expert evidence or provide adequate foundation for the medical opinions.

The court concluded the applicant had not met the requirement that counsel was necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a rear-end collision.

The appeal challenged the conviction on the basis of an alleged Charter s. 8 breach relating to reasonable grounds for arrest, the reliability of expert toxicology evidence estimating blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving, and an alleged misapprehension of evidence.

The court held that the proposed Charter issue could not be raised for the first time on appeal because the evidentiary record was insufficient and there was no explanation for the failure to raise it at trial.

The court also found that the expert evidence remained capable of establishing that the appellant’s blood alcohol level was well above the legal limit and that any alleged deficiencies in a police officer’s evidence were irrelevant to the trial judge’s finding of identity based on an eyewitness.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge was entitled to depart from the parties’ joint sentencing position after hearing submissions.