R. v. Cole, 2012 ONCA 347 holds, in considering a procedural issue arising when an accused failed to attend trial due to oversight, that a designated counsel may enter a plea in summary conviction matters:
The Designation of Counsel and its Effect
 In summary conviction proceedings, a defendant may appear personally, or by counsel, or by agent. Under s. 800(2) of the Criminal Code, a summary conviction court may order the defendant to appear personally and, if the court thinks fit, issue an arrest warrant to compel the defendant's attendance.
 On April 21, 2008, about 21 months prior to the appearance in issue, the respondent signed a designation under s. 650.01 of the Criminal Code. By that document, the respondent designated her counsel to appear on her behalf in any proceedings where her (the respondent's) attendance was not required by law or judicial order. That designation was in force on the date about which we are concerned.
 Section 650.01(2) states the effect of filing a designation. Among other things, when a designation is filed, the appearance of designated counsel is equivalent to the presence of the accused, unless the presiding judge orders otherwise: s. 650.01(3)(b). It follows, in my view, that the appeal judge erred in concluding that the physical absence of the respondent on the date of arraignment and entry of a plea of not guilty contravened her right of presence under s. 650 of the Criminal Code. The respondent, though physically absent herself, was "present" through the operation of s. 650.01(3)(b) of the Criminal Code.