Does a refusal by the judge to appoint a lawyer for the accused constitute sufficient to warrant a new trial?

Owen J.A. treated the refusal by the judge to appoint a lawyer for the accused and the refusal of an adjournment “taken together” as sufficient to warrant a new trial. However, the words quoted by Pigeon J. in my view say that, apart from the question of a right to an adjournment in the circumstances that existed in Regina v. Talbot, the accused was, in that case, entitled to have a lawyer designated by the court. If that interpretation is correct, then what Owen J.A. said, adopted as it was by Pigeon J., is some authority for the existence of an accused’s right, at least in some circumstances, to have counsel appointed by the court to represent him.