Supreme Court


Appeal

GROUNDS
Accused failed to establish requisite factual basis for incompetence allegation

Appeal by accused from convictions for sexual assault, sexual touching and invitation to sexual touching. Accused claimed trial counsel was incompetent in conduct of his defence and her assistance was ineffective. Appeals dismissed. Accused’s main complaint was that his trial counsel refused to allow him to testify at trial. Court agreed with counsel’s assessment that accused’s testimony would have damaged his defence. Accused agreed not to testify but argued he did not mean what he said. He failed to establish requisite factual basis for incompetence allegation and he also failed to provide evidence of prejudice that arose from counsel’s alleged incompetence.

R. v. B. (W.E.) (Jan. 16, 2014, S.C.C., McLachlan C.J.C., LeBel J., Abella J., Rothstein J., Cromwell J., Moldaver J., and Wagner J., File No. 35089) Decision at 104 W.C.B. (2d) 203 was affirmed.  111 W.C.B. (2d) 270.

cover image

DIGITAL EDITION

Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll


A Law Society of Ontario tribunal has ruled that a lawyer charged with offences related to child pornography should not be subject to an interlocutory suspension. Do you agree with this decision?
RESULTS ❯