R. v. Krantz (J.J.), (2011) 266 Man.R.(2d) 36 (PC)

JudgeHeinrichs, P.C.J.
CourtProvincial Court of Manitoba (Canada)
Case DateApril 21, 2011
JurisdictionManitoba
Citations(2011), 266 Man.R.(2d) 36 (PC);2011 MBPC 32

R. v. Krantz (J.J.) (2011), 266 Man.R.(2d) 36 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2011] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.008

Her Majesty The Queen v. Jennifer Jacqueline Krantz (accused)

(2011 MBPC 32)

Indexed As: R. v. Krantz (J.J.)

Manitoba Provincial Court

Heinrichs, P.C.J.

April 21, 2011.

Summary:

The accused was charged with 20 theft and fraud related offences. She was denied Legal Aid. With the Crown's encouragement, she requested that the court appoint counsel to represent her. An election as to trial and possible preliminary inquiry had not been held yet.

The Manitoba Provincial Court held that it had jurisdiction to appoint counsel prior to an election for trial or preliminary hearing. The court relied on its ancillary authority pursuant to s. 537(1)(a) of the Criminal Code to regulate the course and conduct of a preliminary hearing. The court ordered the Province to appoint counsel for her. She would not receive a fair trial if self-represented.

Courts - Topic 563

Judges - Powers - To appoint counsel - The accused was charged with 20 theft and fraud related offences - She was denied Legal Aid - With the Crown's encouragement, she requested that the court appoint counsel to represent her - An election as to trial had not yet been made - Therefore, a possible preliminary inquiry had not been held yet - The Manitoba Provincial Court held that it had jurisdiction to appoint counsel prior to an election for trial or preliminary hearing - The court relied on its ancillary authority pursuant to s. 537(1)(a) of the Criminal Code to regulate the course and conduct of a preliminary hearing - When examining the present workload on the Provincial Court, the enormous amount of time it took for trial co-coordinators to set multi-day trials or preliminary hearings, and the added complications presented by an unrepresented accused, it was clear that having the issue of whether or not a potential self-represented accused was eligible for court appointed counsel decided as early as possible in the proceedings would be a huge benefit to the overall functioning of the court - See paragraphs 9 to 17.

Courts - Topic 563

Judges - Powers - To appoint counsel - The accused was charged with 20 theft and fraud related offences - She was denied Legal Aid initially because of her apparent financial ineligibility and later because, inter alia, she had not been totally forthright - All appeals were exhausted - With the Crown's encouragement, she requested that the court appoint counsel to represent her - An election as to trial had not yet been made - Therefore, a possible preliminary inquiry had not been held yet - The Manitoba Provincial Court ordered the Province to appoint counsel for her - The court relied on its ancillary powers under s. 537(1)(a) of the Criminal Code - Although the accused's lack of forthright disclosure caused Legal Aid to not grant her appeals, this was a situation where discretion should be exercised in her favour - The accused was struggling financially - She was the sole provider for a permanently disabled husband and two teenage children - Her employment had been hampered by the charges - The stress of conducting her own defence in a complex case with a possible end result being her own imprisonment, was such that the court was not satisfied that the accused would have a fair trial if self-represented - See paragraphs 40 to 56.

Criminal Law - Topic 131

Rights of accused - Right to just conduct of trial - [See second Courts - Topic 563 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 3526

Preliminary inquiry - Jurisdiction - General - [See first Courts - Topic 563 ].

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Hynes (D.W.), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 623; 278 N.R. 299; 208 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 181; 624 A.P.R. 181; 159 C.C.C.(3d) 359; 2001 SCC 82, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Valenti (A.), [2010] O.T.C. Uned. 2433; 2010 ONSC 2433, refd to. [para. 10].

R. v. Cote (B.I.) (2002), 222 Sask.R. 233; 2002 SKQB 333, refd to. [para. 11].

R. v. Dew (E.J.) (2009), 245 Man.R.(2d) 211; 466 W.A.C. 211; 2009 MBCA 101, refd to. [para. 13].

R. v. Rowbotham et al. (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321; 41 C.C.C.(3d) 1; 1988 CanLII 147 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].

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; 1999 CanLII 653, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Hazard - see R. v. Drury (L.W.) et al.

R. v. Drury (L.W.) et al. (2000), 150 Man.R.(2d) 64; 230 W.A.C. 64; 2000 MBCA 100, refd to. [para. 18].

R. v. Rawana (N.) (2010), 254 Man.R.(2d) 144; 2010 CarswellMan 312; 2010 MBQB 143, refd to. [para. 41].

R. v. Assoun (G.E.) (2002), 203 N.S.R.(2d) 316; 635 A.P.R. 316; 2002 CarswellNS 145; 2002 NSCA 50, refd to. [para. 42].

Counsel:

Alan Semchuk, for the Crown;

J.J. Krantz, was self-represented.

This application was heard by Heinrichs, P.C.J., of the Manitoba Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on April 21, 2011.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT