The applicant sought a stay of proceedings pending the provision of state-funded counsel following the denial of legal aid, relying on ss. 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and seeking a Rowbotham order.
The court accepted that legal aid had been finally refused but held the applicant failed to establish indigence due to incomplete and unreliable financial disclosure, unexplained deposits, asset ownership, and lack of corroborating evidence regarding claimed financial limitations.
The court also concluded that the fraud prosecution, involving cheque transactions and documentary evidence, was not legally complex and could proceed fairly with a self‑represented accused supported by interpretation and trial management by the court.
As the applicant failed to satisfy the prerequisites for a Rowbotham order, the application was dismissed.
