Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: CR-21-12 DATE: 2021 03 12
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN: HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN – and – Z.
HEARD: March 12, 2021
Endorsement
Note that this Endorsement has been edited by the Court so that it can be published without compromising the publication ban in place. The name of the accused has been replaced throughout with the fictitious initial “Z”. The name of the amicus curiae has been replaced with the initials “R.B.”. The name of the Crown has been deleted.
CONLAN J.
[1] This shall be sent, forthwith, to the Crown, Z, and to Mr. R.B.
[2] Zoom attendance this morning, with the Crown and Z in attendance. The purpose of today was to determine whether this Court should appoint amicus curiae and, if so, the terms of such an appointment Order.
[3] Z is charged with some very serious offences. A direct indictment has been filed. Z has an outstanding bail review application. There are further pretrial applications that will be brought by the Crown. Z has confirmed that he intends to represent himself, as is his right to do so. He has further indicated his desire to attack the legitimacy of the direct indictment that has been very recently filed.
[4] To date, Z has been polite and well-spoken with this Court. A review of his very lengthy materials filed on his bail review application clearly demonstrate, however, that he is preoccupied with matters that are extraneous to the issues at hand. The reader is invited to review those bail review application materials, as they speak for themselves. This Court has an overarching duty to protect the fairness of the proceedings before it. Where the accused represents himself, there is a heavy onus on the Court to provide him with assistance. There are instances, however, where the judge will likely not be in a position, alone, to ensure the fairness of the proceeding. In those relatively rare situations, amicus curiae may be required. I am satisfied that this is one of those relatively rare situations. The case is fairly complex. The accused appears to have some mental health challenges. The accused is adamant about representing himself but appears, at least in part, to be hopelessly incompetent to do so. The circumstances are similar to those that presented themselves in the case of R. v. Walker, 2019 ONCA 765, at paragraphs 60 through 64. I am of the view that there is a serious risk of a miscarriage of justice if no amicus curiae is appointed in this case.
[5] At tab 6 of the Crown’s written submissions dated March 9, 2021, a draft Order appears to appoint amicus curiae. That Order shall issue, with the following additions to it. At clause 2, the person appointed is Mr. R.B. I am familiar with Mr. R.B.; he has appeared before me in the past; and I am aware that he has considerable experience in criminal and mental health matters. At clause 9, the terms and conditions are as follows: amicus curiae shall (a) receive and review Crown disclosure; (b) appear at Court, via Zoom, on March 19, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. and thereafter as required by the Court; (c) liaise with the Crown and with Z as deemed advisable to do so; (d) assist the Court by providing submissions on legal issues, including but not limited to issues that are relevant to Z’s bail review application, and to the direct indictment, and to other pretrial applications to be brought by the Crown; and (e) provide to the Court such other assistance as may be requested by the Court from time to time.
[6] Court staff shall prepare the Order for issuance and, once signed, have it sent, without delay, to the Crown, Z, and to Mr. R.B.
[7] The case is adjourned, to be spoken to, at Court, via Zoom, on Friday, March 19, 2021 at 11:30 a.m. Z is remanded to that date and time. Finally, the publication ban issued at the last Court appearance shall continue and shall apply to the entire proceeding.
(“ Original signed by ”)
Conlan J.