Case information

Criminal law — Trial — Fairness — Rowbotham application — Change of circumstances — Trial preparation for unrepresented accused in custody — Assistance of judge — Sentencing — Pre sentence custody — Nature of change of circumstances requiring hearing of new Rowbotham application — Whether there is miscarriage of justice that undermines public confidence in administration of justice when state takes away notes and medications from imprisoned self represented accused, thus preventing him from preparing for his trial — When and how court must take pre-sentence custody into account in determining sentence pursuant to ss. 719(3) and 726.1 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C 46, ss. 719(3) and 726.1.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

The applicant, Robert Vanier, was the president and chief executive officer of Onco Petroleum Inc., which he had co founded. In 2007, Onco filed a prospectus, which was signed by Mr. Vanier and which contained false statements in relation to the quantity of cash available to finance Onco’s projects, with the Ontario Securities Commission. After a nine week trial and four days of deliberation, Mr. Vanier, who was representing himself, was found guilty by a jury of having made, circulated or published a false prospectus. The trial judge sentenced him to eight years in prison.

The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed Mr. Vanier’s appeal, finding that there had been no unfairness that led to a miscarriage of justice justifying a new trial. Concerning the new Rowbotham application, the trial judge had asked himself the correct question by considering whether there had been a material change of circumstances that justified hearing a new application, and he had not erred in refusing to do so. Moreover, the trial judge had taken several measures to require the detention centre to address the problems raised, and the problems identified were resolved following the judge’s intervention. Regarding the sentence of eight years’ imprisonment, the trial judge had not erred in not crediting Mr. Vanier for 155 days of pre-sentence custody, because he was serving, at the time, a prison sentence for perjury convictions.