And here, Your Honour, my respectful submission, we’ve heard nothing from
the affidavit nor in my friend’s comments that would take it beyond non-payment of fees.
 Crown counsel’s submissions can only be read as suggesting that trial counsel’s references to ethical concerns and loss of
confidence were camouflage for the real reason counsel wanted
off the record — he had not been paid. The Crown argued that,
in the circumstances, non-payment could not justify removal
from the record.
 In refusing counsel’s application to be removed from the
record, the trial judge was critical of the affidavit filed by the
legal assistant. He observed that it dealt mostly with non-payment of fees, and contained virtually no details of the ethical
concerns or the reasons for “loss of confidence”.
 The trial judge concluded:
Given the weight and tenor of the balance of the affidavit dwelling on financial issues, I am forced to conclude that the reference to ethics in the adverb
“ethically” has no basis in evidence. I am persuaded that [trial counsel’s] difficulties relate to payment of his accounts and not to an ethical dilemma.
 The trial judge essentially agreed with Crown counsel’s
submissions. He too refused to accept trial counsel’s representation that his request for removal from the record related
to ethical problems and a breakdown in the client-solicitor
 The trial judge went on to consider whether, in the circumstances, non-payment of fees justified removal of trial counsel from the record. Stressing the proximity of the trial date, the
seriousness of the charge and the potential negative impact
on the accused were counsel to be removed from the record, the
trial judge declined to allow counsel to be removed.
 There is no controversy as to the applicable legal principles. If trial counsel seeks to be removed from the record because
he has not been paid, the trial judge has a discretion to allow
counsel to get off the record. If the trial judge declines to allow
counsel to get off the record, counsel must continue to act
for the accused, subject of course to being fired by the client.
If, however, “ethical” concerns motivate counsel’s application to
be removed from the record, the trial judge is obliged to order
counsel removed without any inquiry into the particulars underlying the request: Cunningham, at paras. 48-49, 58; R. v.
C. (D.D.),  A.J. No. 829, 1996 ABCA 303, 110 C.C.C. (3d)
323, at para. 19, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused 
S.C.C.A. No. 453.