Dillon John Singler Appellant v. Her Majesty the Queen, 2015 SKCA 119

Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan Docket: CACR2628 Citation: R v Singler , 2015 SKCA 119 Date: 2015-11-17 Between: Dillon John Singler Appellant And Her Majesty the Queen Respondent Before: Whitmore J.A. (in Chambers) Disposition: Application denied Written reasons by: The Honourable Mr. Justice Whitmore Application: Provincial Court, J.C. of Saskatoon Chambers date: November 12, 2015 Counsel: Dillon John Singler on his own behalf W. Dean Sinclair, Q.C. for the Respondent Katherine Roy for Court Services Whitmore J.A. I. Introduction & Background [ 1 ] Mr.

Singler was convicted of aggravated assault pursuant to s. 268 of the Criminal Code and was sentenced to a three-year prison term. He has filed a notice of appeal of his conviction. He was represented at trial by counsel, but has been denied representation by Legal Aid which has determined that an appeal would not be successful. Mr. Singler now seeks court appointed counsel pursuant to s. 684 of the Criminal Code to assist him in his appeal. II. analysis [ 2 ]

Section 684 of the Criminal Code provides an appeal court with authority to appoint counsel: 684.

(1) A court of appeal or a judge of that court may, at any time, assign counsel to act on behalf of an accused who is a party to an appeal or to proceedings preliminary or incidental to an appeal where, in the opinion of the court or judge, it appears desirable in the interests of justice that the accused should have legal assistance and where it appears that the accused has not sufficient means to obtain that assistance. [ 3 ] It is not contested that Mr. Singler is without funds. According to his bail and supervision report, Mr. Singler was not able to post bail.

He was not disqualified from Legal Aid on the basis he had financial resources to acquire a lawyer, so it appears that he does not have sufficient means to obtain counsel. The issue then remains whether it is in the interest of justice that counsel should be appointed. [ 4 ] In R v Yukon , 2011 SKCA 77 , 375 Sask R 85, this Court held that in determining whether it is in the interest of justice that an accused have legal counsel, the following factors should be considered: (

i) is the appeal arguable; (ii) can the appeal be presented affectively without legal assistance; and (iii) will the Court be able to decide the appeal properly without the assistance of counsel. [ 5 ] In both R v Ermine , 2010 SKCA 73 , [2010] 7 WWR 605, and R v Leroux , 2014 SKCA 60 , 438 Sask R 162, Jackson J.A. of this Court noted that the seriousness of the offence and sentence are factors to be considered for court appointed counsel. [ 6 ] The main thrust of Mr. Singler’s appeal is that the evidence used to identify him as the attacker is not reliable. He also contests certain factual findings.

If the appeal is not arguable, then the appointment of counsel will not assist the appellant. However, this is not a high threshold. The appeal must be merely shown to be arguable. I do not consider the grounds of Mr. Singler’s appeal to be particularly compelling, however, it is a low threshold to meet and I am inclined to the view that Mr. Singler may have an arguable case. [ 7 ] However, while the offence and the sentence are rather serious, this is not a complex case, and neither the legal issues nor the evidence present complex problems.

The Court should not have difficulty in properly deciding this matter without the assistance of counsel. From his notice of appeal and in his submissions before the Court, it appears that he has the ability to articulate his concerns, notwithstanding that he has a grade 9 education. [ 8 ] For these reasons, Mr. Singler’s application for court appointed counsel is denied. “Whitmore J.A.” Whitmore J.A.