Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: DOHERTY, BORINS and FELDMAN JJ.A.
Between:
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Applicant (Respondent on Appeal)
and
RAYMOND SARPONG Respondent (Appellant on Appeal)
Counsel: Lisa Joyal for applicant/respondent on appeal Raymond Sarpong in person
Heard and Orally Released: April 13, 2007
On appeal from the conviction entered by Justice P.E. Newton of the Ontario Court of Justice dated January 24, 2006.
ENDORSEMENT
1The Crown brings a motion in this appeal. The motion is brought on notice to the appellant who is self-represented, but the appellant has not been provided with any of the material other than the notice of motion. The Crown takes the position that none of the material should be provided to the appellant and, indeed, that it cannot be provided to the appellant.
2The issue raised on the Crown’s motion is a somewhat unique one and, in our view, a difficult one. Certainly, it cannot be said that it is readily apparent that the relief sought by the Crown should be granted.
3Mr. Sarpong indicates that he intends to retain counsel for the appeal, although we are told he told the court the same thing about nine months ago and that nothing has happened since then.
4We canvassed with the Crown the possibility of counsel being retained and she quite properly observed that she is uncertain as to how much help counsel could be on this motion given that it would be her position that counsel should not have access to any of the material either. While we agree that counsel’s role on the motion may be problematic, we think counsel might provide some assistance to us on what is an unusual and difficult problem. We direct that counsel should be appointed pursuant to s. 684 of the Criminal Code to act for the appellant on this appeal.
5We are also satisfied that this is a proper case in which to require the Crown to pay the costs of counsel that Mr. Sarpong will retain. We say this because this is an unusual and difficult issue that has come about through a series of events for which the Crown is ultimately responsible. We propose to adjourn this appeal. Justice Doherty will assume the case management of the appeal. We would expect and require that Mr. Sarpong retain counsel within thirty days. If he does not do so, we will proceed to deal with the motion and with the appeal without any further delay.
“Doherty J.A.”
“S. Borins J.A.”
“K. Feldman J.A.”