Charles Paul Criminisi

The court determined the quantum of costs to be awarded to three innocent third parties following the Crown's unsuccessful forfeiture application under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties without evidence of complicity or collusion by the owners.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from reasonable prosecution standards, including failure to conduct proper disclosure, misrepresentation to the Superior Court regarding mortgage law, and proceeding with a meritless application.

The court awarded substantial costs to FirstOntario and reduced costs to Fercan and GRVN, considering factors including proportionality, duplication of services, and the applicants' own litigation positions.

The applicants sought costs awards against the Crown following the dismissal of the Crown's forfeiture applications under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown had sought forfeiture of two properties allegedly used in connection with marijuana grow operations.

The court found that the Crown's conduct in commencing restraint and forfeiture applications against innocent third parties, without evidence of complicity or collusion, constituted a marked and unacceptable departure from the reasonable standards expected of the prosecution.

The Crown failed to properly assess available evidence before proceeding and maintained an intransigent "hardball" attitude throughout the proceedings.

The court determined that costs awards were warranted.

The appellant appealed an order varying a restraining order that permitted the sale of a property and directed the distribution of proceeds to a mortgagee.

The Court of Appeal quashed the appeal, finding that neither the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act nor section 490 of the Criminal Code provides a right of appeal from an order varying a restraining order in these circumstances.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff one year's salary for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had found the plaintiff's employment contract, which limited notice to three months, unenforceable due to misrepresentations by the defendants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of wrongful dismissal but overturned the finding that the contract was unenforceable, concluding there was no evidence to support the claims of misrepresentation regarding the plaintiff's job description or a failure to invest by the defendants.

The Court varied the judgment, limiting the plaintiff's damages to the three months' salary stipulated in the employment contract.