• R. v. Taylor (1996), 150 N.S.R. (2d) 97 (N.S. S.C.) The main issue to be decided in this case was when is an accused entitled to have state funded legal defence. The court held that an accused must be unable to represent himself or herself because of the complexity of the case or as a result of a personal attribute such as illiteracy.
• R. v. Wilson (1997), 121 C.C.C. (3d) 92 (N.S.C.A.) The court held that a determination about the seriousness and complexity of the case and whether an accused is capable of representing him/herself must include, at a minimum, an inquiry into: (a) the personal abilities of the accused such as her educational and employment background and whether she is able to read, understand the language, and make herself understood; (b) the complexities of the evidence and the law on which the Crown proposes to reply; and, (c) whether there are likely to be any complicated trial procedures such as a voir dire.
• Canada (Attorney General) v. Seifert, 2003 B.C.S.C. 398 The court applied the complexity and ability test. Evidence was led that, among other things, the accused was “effectively illiterate” and had the equivalent of a grade three or four education and did not have a conceptual ability to understand the proceedings. The court concluded that given the accused’s “interrupted education, limited literacy and limited English vocabulary, he would likely require the assistance of counsel.”

Situation in Quebec

It seems that there, as in all the other provinces of Canada, the accused or applicant has the right to obtain legal aid if he or she is unable to ensure his or her own defence, so he or she can receive a just and fair trial.

But if the applicant doesn’t ask to be represented by an attorney, comes before the judge and declares his readiness to answer the judge, the latter is not obliged to suspend the proceedings in order to find an attorney for the applicant.