Cathy Powell

The Bondfield Group, a major construction company, sought CCAA protection due to insolvency, over $1 billion in active contracts, and over 200 lawsuits.

The application was unopposed and resulted from extensive stakeholder negotiations.

The court granted an initial order for CCAA protection, including a stay of proceedings, approval of a tailored $8 million Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) facility funded by Zurich Insurance, an Administration Charge for professional fees, and a Directors' Charge for $3 million (excluding John Aquino).

The court emphasized the public interest in completing critical infrastructure projects and the preference for CCAA over receivership to preserve enterprise value.

The appellants were charged with selling tobacco to a person under 19 years of age contrary to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

Both entered guilty pleas at their first appearance without legal representation.

On appeal, the appellants challenged the validity of their guilty pleas, arguing that the plea inquiry was inadequate, that language barriers compromised their understanding, and that the court failed to inform them of their right to trial or to assist them in obtaining representation.

The court found that the guilty pleas should be quashed because the defendant did not accept the facts underpinning the conviction, and because the plea inquiry was insufficiently detailed given the unsophisticated nature of provincial offences court participants.

Appeal from a conviction for careless driving under section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was found guilty of careless driving after colliding with another vehicle on a snow-covered, icy road.

The appellant was travelling at a speed too fast for the conditions and was unable to stop when the vehicle ahead signalled and began a left turn.

The appellant argued the trial justice erred in assessing due diligence and in finding the speed was too fast for conditions.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial justice properly applied the legal test and had ample evidence to support the conviction.

The appellant appealed his convictions for speeding (117 km/hr in an 80 km/hr zone) and failure to surrender his driver's licence.

The trial judge found the appellant guilty on both counts following a trial where the Crown called the investigating officer and the appellant testified on his own behalf.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the speeding conviction on the basis that the trial judge improperly restricted cross-examination regarding potential flaws in the radar unit as identified in the manufacturer's manual.

The appellant also challenged the failure to surrender licence conviction on the basis that the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting his evidence that he had eventually produced his licence.

The appeal court allowed the appeal on the speeding charge and dismissed the appeal on the licence charge.