A. Sinnadurai

The representative plaintiffs moved for approval of a $10 million settlement in a class proceeding against the Crown regarding its alleged systemic negligence and breach of fiduciary duty toward former Crown wards.

The class alleged the Crown failed to pursue compensation for abuse they suffered.

Sixty former Crown wards objected to the settlement, arguing the compensation was inadequate and failed to address the actual harms suffered.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the settlement was not fair, reasonable, or in the best interests of the class, as it effectively abandoned the major claims for compensation and provided only minimal recovery after legal fees and administration costs.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings until state funding for defence counsel was provided after his legal aid certificate was cancelled.

The Crown argued the application was premature because counsel remained on the record and further alleged the accused had not prioritized funding his defence.

The court held that removal of counsel from the record is not an absolute prerequisite to a Rowbotham application and must be assessed contextually.

Given the accused’s indigence, serious and complex fraud charge, health limitations, and extensive disclosure, the court concluded that a fair trial could not proceed without counsel.

A conditional stay was granted to permit the Attorney General an opportunity to arrange funding for defence counsel.