Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
-and-
________________________________________________________________________
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] Mr. Tommy Tugak has a number of pending criminal charges before
the Court. He is currently in custody and unrepresented, having
dismissed his lawyer and advising the Court that he wishes to
represent himself and does not want to retain different counsel.
[2] Mr. Tugak's former lawyer has brought application to have amicus
curiae appointed. Mr. Tugak opposes the appointment of amicus
curiae.
II. BACKGROUND
Court file #
[5] In relation to the remaining matters, it is expected that they will be set
for trial during the next Rankin Inlet circuit, which is the week of
February 12, 2019. Arrangements were made for Mr. Tugak to
receive disclosure directly.
[8] On December 20, 2018, an email exchange was sent by Mr. Tugak's
sister to judges' chambers and was brought to my attention. The
week of December 17 - 21, 2018, is also the week Mr. Tugak's
matters were last in court and the application to appoint an amicus
curiae was heard.
[10] I mention this as the email is part of the overall context in which the
application for appointment of an amicus curiae was heard.
III. ANALYSIS
[11] The Court has jurisdiction to appoint amicus curiae pursuant to its
inherent jurisdiction, as a superior court, to control its own process
and ensure that the administration of justice is served.
[13] The Court stressed the distinction between the role of amicus and the
role of Defence Counsel. While the accused may benefit from the
appointment of amicus, such benefit is incidental and is not the
purpose of appointing amicus.
[14] Amicus curiae serves as “friend of the court” and has a duty to put
forward submissions or information that may or may not be favourable
to the accused and may be contrary to the wishes of the accused.
Amicus does not have a solicitor/client relationship with the accused.
Amicus cannot be discharged by the accused, as amicus does not
serve the accused.
[15] Succinctly put, “...a lawyer appointed as amicus who takes on the role
of defence counsel is no longer a friend of the court.” (Ontario at para
56)
[16] The Court was clear that the power to appoint amicus should be used
sparingly, in response to exceptional circumstances where the
appointment is necessary to assist the judge in discharging her
functions in the particular case. (Ontario at para 47).
[17] Fish J. (in dissent on other points) set out the following guidelines for
the appointment of amicus:
5
[18] The application for the appointment of an amicus sets out three
reasons why an amicus should be appointed in these matters; first,
that there are complex legal issues, secondly, that Mr. Tugak has
requested a bail review, and thirdly, that there may be some issues
regarding Mr. Tugak's being kept in segregation.
[20] While the applicant submits that there are complex legal issues for the
Court to determine, there is no information before the Court as to
what those legal issues are. With the exception of the matters set for
jury trial, all of the matters appear to be relatively straight forward
summary conviction matters. There is no suggestion from the Crown,
the applicant, or Mr. Tugak that there are Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B
to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [Charter] issues or other
issues regarding the admissibility of evidence. Given the wording of
the charges it is clear that many of the witnesses will be police officers
and there is no suggestion that there are vulnerable witnesses.
[21] With respect to the two charges of sexual assault that are to go to trial
before a jury, with the exception of the fact that the trial will be before
a jury and accordingly, the trial process may be somewhat more
complex than a judge alone trial, there is nothing to indicate that there
are complex legal issues to be determined.
[22] As the Court stated in Ontario, a court must be careful not to appoint
amicus curiae to function as Defence Counsel and thereby delegate
the court’s obligation to ensure trial fairness and undermine the
constitutional right of an accused to represent himself.
6
[24] With respect to the sexual assault matters that are set for jury trial, I
am mindful that the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s. 486.3, upon
application, permits the court to appoint counsel for the purposes of
cross-examining complainants in sexual offences. The exercise of
this power would not only serve its core purpose of ensuring
complainants are able to provide full account of their allegations, in
the circumstances of this case it would also assist in ensuring trial
fairness.
[25] The fact that the matter is proceeding before a jury is not, in and of
itself, sufficient reason for the appointment of amicus. Doing so would
be to run afoul of the caution that the court must not, through the
appointment of amicus, impose counsel on accused who wish to
represent themselves.
[27] The remaining two grounds put forward for the appointment of an
amicus, those being for a bail review and potentially some kind of
application in relation to Mr. Tugak's detention in segregation, are
related.
[28] While in court the week of December 17th, Mr. Tugak raised the issue
of a bail review. He was told by the Court that there are documents
that need to be filed to bring a bail review before the Court. Specific
types of information must be provided to the court on a bail review.
Mr. Tugak is in custody without access to the tools and information
needed to initiate that process. The nature of a bail review is such
that time is of the essence. Delay or denial in bringing on a bail
review because of an accused person's inability to draft and print
documents has the effect of putting form over substance and may
result in miscarriages of justice.
[29] Mr. Tugak’s legal circumstances could change quite rapidly in the
next few weeks depending on decisions made by the Crown and how
quickly his matters go to trial.
7
IV. CONCLUSION
1. Amicus will prepare and file the necessary documents for a bail
review, ensuring that the information required pursuant to Rule 32 of
the Criminal Procedure Rules of the Supreme Court of the Northwest
Territories, SI/98-78 (Nu) is provided to the court.
___________________
Justice S. Cooper
Nunavut Court of Justice