How have courts interpreted section 24 (1) and 24 (2) of the Charter regarding the provision of state-funded counsel?

These sections place an onus on government to ensure the provision of state-funded counsel. In New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Service v. G. (J.) 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC), [1999] 3 S. C. R. 46, Lamer C. J. found at paragraph 2: "I have concluded that the Government of New Brunswick was under a constitutional obligation to provide the appellant with state-funded counsel in the particular circumstances of this case. When government action triggers a hearing in which the interests protected by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are engaged, it is under an obligation to do whatever is required to ensure that the hearing be fair. In some circumstances, depending on the seriousness of the interests at stake, the complexity of the proceedings, and the capacities of the parent, the government may be required to provide an indigent parent with state-funded counsel. Where the government fails to discharge its constitutional obligation, a judge has the power to order the government to provide a parent with state-funded counsel under section 24 (1) of the Charter through whatever means the government wishes, be it through the Attorney General's budget, the consolidated funds of the province, or the budget of the legal aid system, if one is in place."