An accused charged with impaired driving and over 80 brought an application for a conditional stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided.
The Crown opposed, arguing that since the accused faced only a fine and not incarceration, the application should be dismissed.
The court held that the absence of a jail sentence does not preclude an order for state-funded counsel where counsel is essential to a fair trial.
The court found the accused was indigent with no other means to retain counsel, and that counsel was essential given the complexity of the case (including issues regarding the two-hour limit for breath samples, potential statement voir dire, and a medical defence) and the accused's severe health issues that would impair his ability to participate effectively in his defence.
The proceedings were conditionally stayed pending provision of state-funded counsel.