Stephen Jenuth, a duty counsel lawyer representing Singh, did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment.
|
|
Landlord are not allowed to access duty counsel on the hearing day.
|
|
The Duty Counsel system is the way in which these rights are implemented in Ontario. Duty Counsel lawyers may serve as the arrested person's representative to the court on an ad-hoc basis, unless the accused has secured other legal advice. Legal Aid Ontario employs both staff, and per diem lawyers (private bar members who work part-time) as duty counsel. Most lawyers providing telephone duty counsel services to arrestees and detainees are private bar lawyers contracted by a private firm to provide service on behalf of Legal Aid Ontario.
|
|
The appeal from the summary conviction appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal for Ontario. The court unanimously found that a detainee is not required to be advised of the existence of duty counsel or the toll-free number unless the circumstances warrant it (i.e., the detainee expresses concern about the availability of duty counsel). Consequently, there was no Charter infringement.
|
|
Some of these private contractor lawyers work a few shifts a month in addition to their own work in private practice in order to serve the community. Others work on a full-time basis with the company under contract to Legal Aid Ontario. Duty counsel is also available in family law and child protection cases. Duty counsel will advise clients and sometimes speak for them in court, but will not take on cases in the long-term.
|
|
354-371; for response of Legal Aid Program Committee of Law Society of Upper Canada see "The Functions of a Duty Counsel", The Criminal Law Quarterly, Vol. 12 (1969-70), pp. 124-131.
|
|
In Ontario, Canada duty counsel refers to a lawyer paid by Legal Aid Ontario, an agency of the provincial government, who provides limited legal services in criminal, family law and child protection matters to people who are currently under arrest, or who arrive at court without representation, mainly in the Ontario Court of Justice. The Duty Counsel lawyer is often the first point of contact for legal advice provided to a detained or arrested individual. People arrested by police services across the province of Ontario, as well as by Canada Border Services Agency officers at land, air, and sea ports of entry in Ontario also have the right to contact Duty Counsel. Any person arrested or detained in Canada has the right to speak to a lawyer without delay (with very narrow exceptions), and the police are required to inform them of that right, and facilitate access to a lawyer.
|
|
R v Prosper, [1994] 3 S.C.R. 236 is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to duty counsel upon arrest or detainment by police under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court found that merely reading the accused his or her rights is insufficient to discharge the right to counsel; the police must also provide the accused with access to legal aid or duty counsel. Cyril Prosper was pulled over by the police for driving erratically. The police noticed that he was severely inebriated and arrested him.
|
|
The question before the Supreme Court was first, whether section 10(b) of the Charter imposes a substantive constitutional obligation on governments to ensure that duty counsel is available upon arrest or detention to provide free and immediate preliminary legal advice upon request. Second, whether the evidence should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter as it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The court unanimously held that the Charter does not impose an obligation to ensure duty counsel is available upon arrest. In a five to three decision the Court held that the evidence should be excluded.
|
|
Toronto: Broadview Press, 2000, page 38. In R. v. Bartle (1994) the Supreme Court ruled that rights to be informed that one may seek counsel included rights to be told of duty counsel and how to obtain it (e.g., through a free telephone call).
|
|
In a four to three decision, the Court held that there was a violation of section 10(b). Lamer, writing for the majority, held that the police have both a duty to inform an accused of their right as well as provide sufficient information on obtaining advice from duty counsel.
|
|
The summary conviction appeal was heard in the Ontario Court of Justice (General Division). The appeal judge found there was a requirement for the police to advise Bartle of the existence of duty counsel and the toll-free number, and that there was a Charter infringement. He went on the exclude the breath samples as evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.
|
|
Lamer CJ wrote the majority decision. The majority found that the proper application of Brydges required the police to advise a detainee in all cases the existence of duty counsel and the toll-free number. Otherwise, a detainee cannot make an informed decision about whether to call a lawyer. In a concurring opinion, La Forest J agreed with the majority's decision entirely.
|
|
Hadžić's initial arraignment before the ICTY was on 25 July and lasted 15 minutes. He declined to enter a plea to charges arising from the war in Croatia. His duty counsel Vladimir Petrovic said Hadžić would not "enter a plea today. He is going to avail himself of the rights granted to him..." Hadžić pleaded not guilty at his second appearance before the tribunal on 24 August.
|
|
The trial was held in the Ontario Court of Justice (Provincial Division). Bartle testified he waived his rights to counsel because he did not know whom to call or whom he could get hold of. The trial judge found there was no requirement for the police to advise Bartle of the existence of duty counsel or the toll- free number, and that there was no Charter infringement.
|
|
Legal Aid Ontario (LAO) is a publicly funded and publicly accountable non- profit corporation, responsible for administering the legal aid program in the province of Ontario, Canada. Through a toll-free number and multiple in-person locations such as courthouse offices, duty counsel and community legal clinics, the organization provides more than one million assists to low-income Ontario residents each year.[legalaid.on.ca/en/about/default.asp "About LAO."] Legal Aid Ontario.
|
|
If you are charged with an offence, you > may apply to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan for legal assistance. Bartle advised that he understood. The officer did not mention the existence of duty counsel, which could give immediate legal advice, or that there was a 24-hour toll-free number for legal aid. The officer asked Bartle if he wanted to speak to a lawyer "now", notwithstanding there was no telephone in the area.
|
|
In Australia, duty solicitors are sometimes called duty lawyers, and are provided to disadvantaged people through the Legal Aid Commission in the relevant state or territory. In Canada, duty solicitors are called duty counsel, and perform functions that would, in the British system, be performed by barristers and by solicitors. The United States and Brazil employ a public defender system with nearly identical duties, representing an indigent client from custodial questioning, to charge, trial, sentence, and appeal.
|
|
During the Grand River land dispute, McHale organized protests against the occupation of the Douglas Creek Estates. Actions included the attempted removal of Aboriginal flags with the aim of replacing them with Canadian flags, for which he was arrested to prevent a breach of the peace. McHale was not charged, but was held in jail overnight and had to appear in court in Hamilton. The crown attorney, the duty counsel and the justice of the peace registered surprise that McHale had been held overnight without charges.
|
|
However, Saskatchewan happened to have different hours during which one could make a free telephone call to directly obtain duty counsel. The arrest occurred at a time when it was not available; therefore the right established in Bartle was inapplicable in this case, as it would have been of no use. Still, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial. As the Court wrote, the Crown counsel's actions during jury selection "were nothing short of a flagrant abuse of process and interference with the administration of justice".
|
|
During the plan's infancy, Linden was ejected from court by a judge for attempting to represent an accused as duty counsel.The presiding judge was not familiar with, or amenable to, this recent innovation. "Judge orders legal aid lawyer removed from his courtroom", Toronto Star, July 17, 1969; "A bad day in court" (editorial), Toronto Star, July 18, 1969; "Wishart wants report on ouster", The Telegram, July 17, 1969; "Judge rapped on legal aid man's ouster", The Telegram, July 18, 1969; for Judge Bolsby in his own defence see "Duty Counsel in Magistrate's Court", The Criminal Law Quarterly, Vol. 11 (1968-69), pp.
|
|
By 1967, the Legal Aid Act was passed, dividing responsibility of operating the legal aid plan between the province and the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC). Legal help was to be provided through two methods: in-court duty counsel lawyers and the certificate program where recipients would be given a "voucher" that could be used to hire a lawyer to represent them for a certain number of hours. Legal services were limited to criminal matters where the accused faced a serious risk of going to jail and family matters heard in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.Attorney General / Ministère du Procureur général.
|
|
R v Bartle, [1994] 3 SCR 173 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the right to retain and instruct counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The Court held that a police officer is required to hold off on his or her investigation upon arresting an individual until the detainee has been informed of his or her rights and given sufficient information and access to contact a private lawyer or duty counsel. The case applied the earlier Supreme Court of Canada decision R v Brydges.[1990] 1 SCR 190 [Bridges].
|
|
In December 2009, Bryant returned to the private practice of law and joined Norton Rose LLP (formerly Ogilvy Renault) as Senior Advisor and was involved with commercial and investment matters relating to energy, natural resources and infrastructure/public-private partnerships. In 2012 he moved to the Ishkonigan, a consulting and mediation firm owned by Phil Fontaine, where he accepted a position as a principal. In 2015 he began to work for Legal Aid Ontario as a criminal defence duty counsel. In 2016, he was working in partnership with King Law Chambers as a criminal defence lawyer for the indigent and indigenous, and negotiating aboriginal land claims for First Nations.
|
|
News and reducing the legal aid certificate program by $27.5 million. This cap resulted in a steep decline of certificates granted; more than 150,000 fewer were issued from 1994 to 1999. Emphasis began to shift towards more cost-effective services such as staff lawyers, duty counsel and Student Legal Aid Services Societies. In 1998 and in response to the growing need for legal aid, the Mike Harris Progressive Conservative government, on recommendation by the 1997 report A Blueprint for Publicly Funded Legal Services: the Report of the Ontario Legal Aid Review, introduced the Legal Aid Services Act which outlined the creation of an independent agency called Legal Aid Ontario (LAO).
|
|
William Brydges was a Canadian man whose arrest for murder resulted in the leading Supreme Court of Canada case R v Brydges on the right of a detainee to access duty counsel. His case was a Canadian precedent, and created significant controversy after the Supreme Court of Canada upheld his acquittal. He was found to have been denied access to an attorney because he was not informed of legal services available to him when he told police he could not afford a lawyer. This case had nationwide ramifications, requiring all police officers to advise a person under arrest of the availability of legal services even if they couldn't afford them.
|
|
On November 30, 2011, the Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia held a Rally in Ribbons and Robes, a province-wide protest on the steps of regional and provincial courthouses to raise awareness about the state of legal aid in British Columbia. The Association carried out job-action protests from January to April, 2012. The primary component of the job-action impacted the duty counsel services outlined above; these services were withheld for one week in January 2012, two weeks in February, three weeks in March, and throughout all of April. On December 30, 2011, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of British Columbia, the Honourable Shirley Bond, announced an augmentation of LSS funding, by $2.1 million annually.
|
|
In Ontario a person may be represented by an individual licensed by the Law Society of Upper Canada such as a lawyer or a paralegal. There are other exemptions for unpaid representatives such as direct employees of the landlord or in the case of a tenant a friend or family member. It is the obligation of the individual claiming the representation exemption to provide proof to the board of their legal authorization to represent a person or company in front of the board. Prior to a board hearing tenants are offered the opportunity to speak to tenant duty counsel that is usually provided by a community legal aid clinic funded through Legal Aid Ontario.
|
|
McLachlin J also wrote a concurring opinion, agreeing with the majority's decision. She also found that Bartle's rights to counsel were infringed because he should have specifically been told he had the right to be told that he had the right to speak to counsel prior to incriminating himself before being charged. Although disagreeing with the majority on the ultimate issue (see below), Gonthier J agreed with the majority's decision on the scope of rights to counsel. In a dissenting opinion, L'Heureux-Dubé J disagreed the police were required to always inform a detainee of existence of duty counsel or the toll-free number, since there is no constitutional requirement for such programs to exist in the first place.
|
|
Brownstone worked as a Legal Aid duty counsel lawyer in the Toronto criminal courts from 1983 to 1985, and then practised criminal law with prominent criminal lawyers William A. Gorewich (now a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice) and Stephen Price. In 1987 he joined the Research Facility of the Ontario Legal Aid Plan, where he became Head of the Family Law section. In 1989 he joined the Ministry of the Attorney General, Support and Custody Enforcement Branch, as counsel. The Support and Custody Enforcement Program was responsible for the enforcement of child and spousal support orders and custody orders. In 1991 he was appointed Legal Director of the Family Support Plan (which was the new name of the Support and Custody Enforcement Program) and in 1992 he was appointed Director of the entire Program while continuing to serve as Legal Director.
|
|
A duty solicitor, duty counsel, or duty lawyer, is a solicitor whose services are available to a person either suspected of, or charged with, a criminal offence free of charge (pro bono), if that person does not have access to a solicitor of their own and usually if it is judged by a means test that they cannot afford one. The system is operative in several Commonwealth countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. These solicitors are generally in private practice, in contrast to the public defender system in the United States where an attorney employed directly by the state will be assigned to handle the case from pre-trial to potentially appeal. Similar schemes in the UK are the Public Defender Service in a few centres across England and Wales, and the Public Defence Solicitors' Office for Scotland.
|
|
The situation would deteriorate further, additional legal and financial irregularities were uncovered, leaving Smallpeice and the other directors to consider resignation. Smallpeice was informed, after consulting Nicholas Wilson, a partner with Slaughter and May that he and the other directors could leave themselves liable to legal action for dereliction of duty. Counsel advised Smallpeice and the other directors that they should submit Lonrho to inspection by the Department of Trade and Industry, but in discussions with the Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Leslie O'Brien, this course of action was recommended against. Smallpeice and seven of his fellow directors felt there was no other course of action left open to them but to ask Rowland to relinquish all executive appointments with Lonrho, but to allow him to remain on the board as a non-executive director.
|
|