The appellant appealed convictions for marijuana possession and resisting arrest on the basis that, as a self-represented accused, he did not receive the minimum judicial assistance necessary to ensure a fair trial.
The court held that the trial judge's failures regarding inquiries about counsel and disclosure, explanation of trial procedure and offence elements, attention to potential Charter issues, and gatekeeping on opinion evidence cumulatively rendered the trial unfair.
Applying appellate principles governing unrepresented accused, the court found a miscarriage of justice and allowed the conviction appeal.
A new trial was ordered, and the sentence appeal was treated as moot because the sentence had already been served.
