R. v. Chan (M.K.) et al., (2000) 275 A.R. 381 (QB)
| Judge | Binder, J. |
| Court | Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta (Canada) |
| Case Date | September 21, 2000 |
| Citations | (2000), 275 A.R. 381 (QB) |
R. v. Chan (M.K.) (2000), 275 A.R. 381 (QB)
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite: [2000] A.R. TBEd. OC.104
Her Majesty The Queen (respondent) v. Sai Ming Fok and Man Kit Chan et al. (applicants)
(0003 2182 C5)
Indexed As: R. v. Chan (M.K.) et al.
Alberta Court of Queen's Bench
Judicial District of Edmonton
Binder, J.
October 6, 2000.
Summary:
Several accused were charged with various drug related offences. Certain unrepresented accused intended to apply for state funded counsel to represent them at trial (Rowbotham application) and to have counsel paid in excess of Legal Aid rates (Fisher application). The accused applied for state funded counsel to represent them on the Rowbotham and Fisher applications.
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench allowed the application.
Civil Rights - Topic 4612
Right to counsel - General - Waiver or abandonment of - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "If an accused who could meet the Rowbotham test [i.e., appointment of state funded counsel] nevertheless decides that he or she does not require counsel and later changes his or her mind, that accused is still entitled to apply for state funded counsel, certainly if such decision is made prior to the commencement of the trial and particularly where an alleged implied waiver by conduct occurs at a time when a Preliminary Inquiry is anticipated, or where it is anticipated that the matter will be tried in Provincial Court, and subsequently the charges are proceeded with by way of direct Indictment. If what I have said is correct in relation to an absolute waiver, it certainly applies to a lesser form of waiver." - See paragraph 41.
Civil Rights - Topic 4631
Right to counsel - Appointment of counsel by the court or the state - General - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that "if an accused wishes to retain counsel but cannot afford to do so due to a lack of financial resources, does not have the ability to conduct his or her own defence, and without counsel will be deprived of a fair trial, the state has the responsibility of paying for such services if it wishes to proceed with the prosecution of the offence or offences which the state has charged an accused with committing. If the Crown is not willing to pay, it is open to the Court to stay the charges." - See paragraph 17 - The court discussed the test for determining whether an accused required state funded counsel - See paragraphs 18 to 20.
Civil Rights - Topic 4631
Right to counsel - Appointment of counsel by the court or the state - General - [See Civil Rights - Topic 4612 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 4633.1
Right to counsel - Appointment of counsel by the court or the state - Where party unable to represent self - [See first Civil Rights - Topic 4631 and Civil Rights - Topic 4636 ].
Civil Rights - Topic 4636
Right to counsel - Appointment of counsel by the court or the state - For preliminary matters - Several accused were charged with various drug related offences - Various unrepresented accused intended to apply for state funded counsel to represent them at trial (Rowbotham application) and to have counsel paid in excess of Legal Aid rates (Fisher application) - The accused applied for state funded counsel to represent them on the Rowbotham and Fisher applications - Some of the accused had difficulties with English - The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench stated that the test for determining whether state funded counsel was required at trial also applied in considering whether it was required at a Rowbotham application - The court ordered state funded counsel on the Rowbotham and Fisher applications for certain accused to ensure a fair hearing - The court permitted two counsel for the Fisher applications - See paragraphs 8 to 39.
Cases Noticed:
R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Rain (M.M.) (1998), 223 A.R. 359; 183 W.A.C. 359; 130 C.C.C.(3d) 167 (C.A.), application for leave to appeal dismissed (1999), 239 N.R. 197; 250 A.R. 192; 213 W.A.C. 192 (S.C.C.), refd to. [paras. 2, 8].
R. v. Robinson; R. v. Dolejs (1989), 100 A.R. 26; 63 D.L.R.(4th) 289 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Schafer (R.C.) (1999), 178 Sask.R. 105 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Wabash (L.C.) (2000), 191 Sask.R. 69 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 2, 3, 38].
New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. J.G. and D.V., [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46; 244 N.R. 276; 216 N.B.R.(2d) 25; 552 A.P.R. 25, refd to. [paras. 2, 19].
R. v. Chan (M.K.) (2000), 261 A.R. 351; 225 W.A.C. 351 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 2, 9].
Winters v. Legal Services Society (B.C.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 160; 244 N.R. 203; 128 B.C.A.C. 161; 208 W.A.C. 161, refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Fisher, [1997] S.J. No. 530 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Stillman (W.W.D.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 607; 209 N.R. 81; 185 N.B.R.(2d) 1; 472 A.P.R. 1; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 321; 5 C.R.(5th) 1, refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Fleming (D.P.) (2000), 189 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 104; 571 A.P.R. 104; 33 C.R.(5th) 351 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Dix (J.) (1998), 224 A.R. 42 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Wingfield (J.R.) (1998), 174 Sask.R. 304 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 2].
Reference Re Firearms Act (Can.) (1996), 193 A.R. 105; 135 W.A.C. 105; 142 D.L.R.(4th) 325 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].
Reference Re Electoral Divisions Statutes Amendment Act (Alta.) (1993), 141 A.R. 62; 46 W.A.C. 62 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Baba, [1998] B.C.J. No. 3141 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 2].
R. v. Lewis, [1995] Y.J. No. 116 (Terr. Ct.), refd to. [para. 2].
White, Re (1976), 32 C.C.C.(2d) 478 (Alta. T.D.), refd to. [para. 2].
Auckland Harbour Board v. R., [1924] A.C. 318 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 3].
Deutsch v. Law Society of Upper Canada Legal Aid Fund, Lawson and Legge (1985), 11 O.A.C. 30; 48 C.R.(3d) 166 (Ont. Div. Ct.), refd to. [para. 3].
Gochanour v. Alberta (Solicitor General) et al. (1990), 105 A.R. 289 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 3].
Mireau v. Canada et al. (1991), 96 Sask.R. 197 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 3].
Panacui v. Legal Aid Society (Alta.) (1987), 80 A.R. 137; 40 C.C.C.(3d) 459 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 3].
Spellacy v. Newfoundland (1991), 91 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 74; 286 A.P.R. 74 (Nfld. T.D.), refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. Curragh Inc. et al., [1997] 1 S.C.R. 537; 209 N.R. 252; 159 N.S.R.(2d) 1; 468 A.P.R. 1; 5 C.R.(5th) 291; 113 C.C.C.(3d) 481, refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. Gauvin (E.) and Duguay (P.) (1997), 184 N.B.R.(2d) 229; 469 A.P.R. 229 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. R.J.H. (2000), 255 A.R. 320; 220 W.A.C. 320; 145 C.C.C.(3d) 202 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. James and Svidal (1990), 107 A.R. 241; 74 Alta. L.R.(2d) 245 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. Papp (G.P.) (1998), 167 Sask.R. 120 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. Potts (L.) (1995), 136 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 178; 423 A.P.R. 178 (P.E.I.C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. Rockwood (1989), 91 N.S.R.(2d) 305; 233 A.P.R. 305 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
Canada (Attorney General) v. Stuart, J., and Savard (1996), 74 B.C.A.C. 81; 121 W.A.C. 81; 47 C.R.(4th) 281 (Yuk. Terr. C.A.), refd to. [para. 3].
R. v. Ledinski (G.) (1998), 172 Sask.R. 97; 185 W.A.C. 97 (C.A. Registrar), refd to. [paras. 4, 38].
R. v. S.S.S. (1999), 98 O.T.C. 366; 136 C.C.C.(3d) 477 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 4, 48].
R. v. Laporte (1993), 113 Sask.R. 34; 52 W.A.C. 34; 84 C.C.C.(3d) 343 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 4, 49].
R. v. Litchfield, [1993] 4 S.C.R. 333; 161 N.R. 161; 145 A.R. 321; 55 W.A.C. 321; 86 C.C.C.(3d) 97; 14 Alta. L.R.(3d) 1; 25 C.R.(4th) 137, refd to. [paras. 4, 49].
R. v. Litchfield (B.F.) (1994), 163 A.R. 198 (Q.B.), refd to. [paras. 4, 49].
R. v. Black (F.W.L.) (1998), 170 N.S.R.(2d) 197; 515 A.P.R. 297 (S.C.), refd to. [paras. 4, 49].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Goulay, M., Right to Retain and Instruct Counsel v. Right to Counsel and Who Should Pay the Cost?, generally [para. 2].
Counsel:
Marvin Bloos, for the applicant, Man Kit Chan;
Thomas Engel, for the applicant, Sai Ming Fok;
Laurie Wood, for the applicants, Binh Quoc Trang and Candy Bi Ying Cai;
Bradley Reitz, for the Crown.
This application was heard on September 21, 2000, before Binder, J., of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench, Judicial District of Edmonton, who delivered the following judgment on October 6, 2000.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R. v. Chan (A.H.) et al., 2003 ABQB 759
...2000, Binder, J., issued a decision indicating that state funding of counsel was warranted for the Rowbotham and Fisher applications [see 275 A.R. 381]. Those applications were granted by Binder, J., on October 20, 2000 [see 276 A.R. 1 ]. In his decision, he wrote at para. 9: "There are te......
-
R. v. Cai,
...All of the accused were represented at the funding application by two lawyers also appointed and funded by the trial judge: (2000), 275 A.R. 381. [2] In both courts, both sides assumed that the respondents face serious charges, lack funds, qualify for Legal Aid, and are not competent to def......
-
R. v. Biever (C.), 2015 ABQB 301
...311, 232 BCAC 1, leave denied [2006] SCCA No 261-262; R v Lalo (1998), 173 NSR (2d) 149, 40 WCB (2d) 107 (NSSC); R v Fok , 2000 ABQB 695, 275 AR 381; R v Willick , 2014 ABPC 243; R v Stinchcombe , [1991] 3 SCR 326, 130 NR 277; Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571, 543 AR 215. [30] In addition to h......
-
R. v. Bailey (G.S.) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 611 (PC)
...canvassed, depending on the circumstances. [68] In Alberta, Justice Binder provided this summary in his decision in R. v. Chan (M.K.) (2000), 275 A.R. 381 (Alta. Q.B.). At paragraphs 17-20, his Lordship said: [17] The parties agreed on the test as enunciated in Rain. Clearly, if an accused ......
-
R. v. Chan (A.H.) et al., 2003 ABQB 759
...2000, Binder, J., issued a decision indicating that state funding of counsel was warranted for the Rowbotham and Fisher applications [see 275 A.R. 381]. Those applications were granted by Binder, J., on October 20, 2000 [see 276 A.R. 1 ]. In his decision, he wrote at para. 9: "There are te......
-
R. v. Cai,
...All of the accused were represented at the funding application by two lawyers also appointed and funded by the trial judge: (2000), 275 A.R. 381. [2] In both courts, both sides assumed that the respondents face serious charges, lack funds, qualify for Legal Aid, and are not competent to def......
-
R. v. Biever (C.), 2015 ABQB 301
...311, 232 BCAC 1, leave denied [2006] SCCA No 261-262; R v Lalo (1998), 173 NSR (2d) 149, 40 WCB (2d) 107 (NSSC); R v Fok , 2000 ABQB 695, 275 AR 381; R v Willick , 2014 ABPC 243; R v Stinchcombe , [1991] 3 SCR 326, 130 NR 277; Meads v Meads , 2012 ABQB 571, 543 AR 215. [30] In addition to h......
-
R. v. Bailey (G.S.) et al., [2012] A.R. Uned. 611 (PC)
...canvassed, depending on the circumstances. [68] In Alberta, Justice Binder provided this summary in his decision in R. v. Chan (M.K.) (2000), 275 A.R. 381 (Alta. Q.B.). At paragraphs 17-20, his Lordship said: [17] The parties agreed on the test as enunciated in Rain. Clearly, if an accused ......