Nunavut court ponders case of man who fired his lawyer

An “amicus curiae,” or “friend of the court,” should be appointed to help deal with a Nunavut man suffering from a possible mental disorder who faces multiple criminal charges and who wishes to apply for a bail review, Justice Susan Cooper ruled last December.

The man, Tommy Tugak, was facing two counts of sexual assault on two different complainants, along with a long list of less serious summary conviction allegations.

Those include various charges of breach of an undertaking, breach of conditions, breach of a recognizance, uttering threats to police officers and one count of assault.

But some time prior to November 2018, Tugak fired his lawyer, Patrick Smith, and said he wanted to defend himself in court.

A psychiatric assessment had been ordered for Tugak on Nov. 19, 2018, to determine whether he was fit to stand trial and also to determine whether he suffered from a mental disorder at the time of the alleged offences.

Tugak never received that assessment, even though a psychiatrist had arrived in Iqaluit in December.

“By that time, Mr. Tugak had discharged his lawyer and refused to cooperate in the assessment. Accordingly, the psychiatrist did not provide a report,” Cooper said.

At the same time, Tugak’s sister had sent an email to “a number of people involved in the administration of justice,” Cooper said.

“The email expresses concerns regarding Mr. Tugak’s mental health and the fact that he is being held in segregation and is not in a hospital being treated,” Cooper’s judgment said.

So in response to this situation, Smith applied to have the Nunavut court appoint an amicus curiae to ensure the proper administration of justice in Tugak’s case.

A friend of the court cannot act as a defence lawyer and does not have a solicitor-client relationship with the accused person.

“Amicus curiae serves as ‘friend of the court’ and has a duty to put forward submissions or information that may or may not be favourable to the accused and may be contrary to the wishes of the accused,” Cooper said.

Also, an accused person can’t fire a friend of the court, because the friend of the court doesn’t serve the accused, Cooper said.

Case law suggests the power to appoint a friend of the court should only be used sparingly and in exceptional circumstances, she said.

Cooper also had to take into account the fact that the Crown had not made a final decision to proceed with a trial on the sexual assault charges, saying it would be “premature” to appoint a friend of the court until the Crown’s intentions are clear.

And she also said that some of the other summary conviction matters are so simple, Tugak may not need assistance with them.

But on the application for a bail review, and a potential application to challenge his detention in segregation, Cooper said that appointing a friend of the court is justified, because of the urgency of the matter and because of the complexity of the issues involved in a bail review.

“Specific types of information must be provided to the court on a bail review. Mr. Tugak is in custody without access to the tools and information needed to initiate that process.”

“The nature of a bail review is such that time is of the essence. Delay or denial in bringing on a bail review because of an accused person’s inability to draft and print documents has the effect of putting form over substance and may result in miscarriages of justice,” Cooper said.

Tugak was to have appeared in court in Rankin Inlet on the summary conviction matters during the week of Feb. 12.

Cooper gave her judgment orally last Dec. 21. The Nunavut court released the written version in February.

R. v. Tugak, 2018 Nunavut C... by on Scribd