CanLII
metadata only
R. v. Smith
Decided: 2026-09-25. Docket: CAC 547332. Citation: 2026 NSCA 68 (CanLII). Procedure — Criminal appeal — Appointment of counsel — Criminal Code, s. 684(1) — Motion for state funded counsel on appeal from convictions — Two-part test applied, sufficient means and interests of justice — Consideration of complexity, self-representation limits, and fairness — Section 684 motion granted | Procedure — Criminal appeal — Financial eligibility — Criminal Code, s. 684(1) — Whether appellant has not sufficient means to obtain private counsel — Affidavit evidence and cross-examination on income, debts, judgments, and access to credit — Effect of Mareva injunction and banking termination on ability to retain counsel — Sufficient means not established by Crown objection — Motion granted | Procedure — Crim
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- R v IA#1039747
- R v WA#1368070
- R. v. Corning#1090909
- NRS-2817 | Depositions [Bingara Court of Petty Sessions]#336997
- State Criminal Appeals Revealed#1019680
Record · ID 1236061
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive