Christine Lonsdale

The respondent operated a direct mail business in Ontario that sold lottery tickets and merchandise to persons outside Canada.

He was acquitted of making false or misleading representations 'to the public' under s. 52(1) of the Competition Act because the trial judge held the phrase only applied to the Canadian public.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that 'to the public' is not restricted to the Canadian public where there is a real and substantial link to Canada.

However, the Court ordered a new trial because the trial judge's excessive interventions and cross-examination of the respondent compromised the appearance of trial fairness.

The Court also clarified that reliance on legal advice is a mistake of law, not fact, and that the post-1999 mens rea requirement for s. 52 requires proof of knowledge or recklessness regarding the misleading nature of the representations.

The Ministry of Correctional Services appealed an order of the Divisional Court that upheld a decision by Blair J. regarding the control of court process and procedural fairness.

The Court of Appeal found that Blair J.'s order was discretionary and made within his jurisdiction.

Finding no basis to interfere with the order, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to the Requester.

The appellant sued multiple defendants for malicious prosecution, defamation, and other claims arising from a child sexual abuse investigation that resulted in criminal charges which were later stayed.

After his civil action was dismissed at trial, he appealed, primarily arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the ineffective assistance claim was an abuse of process because the appellant had already sued his trial counsel for negligence and settled that action.

The court also rejected arguments that the trial judge should have ordered a mistrial and that the trial judge erred in dismissing the defamation claim against the child's grandmother.

The defendants appealed a trial judgment awarding the plaintiff, a doctor and research scientist, $950,000 in general, aggravated, and punitive damages for defamation arising from a television broadcast.

The broadcast falsely implied the plaintiff supported prescribing killer drugs, was in a conflict of interest, and acted negligently or dishonestly.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the defences of justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment failed because the broadcast was deliberately slanted and the defendants did not honestly believe their thesis.

The damage awards and the award of solicitor and client costs were affirmed due to the egregious and malicious conduct of the defendants.