Claudia Brabazon

Following the dismissal of an appeal as an abuse of process, the Crown sought costs.

The appellant, a declared vexatious litigant, had used an alias to subvert a prior order and commence the appeal without leave.

The court found the appellant's conduct reprehensible and outrageous, warranting full indemnity costs.

Costs were fixed at $6,000 payable to the Crown.

The Crown moved to dismiss an appeal brought by 'Maxine Adwella' against a decision of the Animal Care Review Board regarding the removal of abandoned pets.

The Crown argued that 'Maxine Adwella' was an alias for Althea Reyes, who had previously been declared a vexatious litigant and was prohibited from commencing proceedings without leave.

The court found that the appellant was indeed Althea Reyes using an alias to circumvent the vexatious litigant order.

The appeal was dismissed pursuant to Rule 2.1.03(1) and as an abuse of process.

The offender was convicted of fraud over $5,000 after defrauding a woman he met on a dating website of $595,000.

He used a false surname and convinced her to invest in a fictitious internet app and second mortgages, but instead used the funds for personal expenses, gambling debts, and restitution for a prior fraud conviction.

The court found the offender's actions highly exploitative and noted his extensive related criminal record.

The court sentenced the offender to 6 years' imprisonment, less 462 days of pre-trial custody credit, and ordered restitution and a fine in lieu of forfeiture, each in the amount of $558,456.

The applicant brought a private prosecution against his wife's employer and her superiors, alleging criminal harassment, obstruction of justice, intimidation, and retaliation.

Following a pre-enquete hearing, the Justice of the Peace refused to issue process on six counts due to insufficient evidence, and the Crown Attorney stayed the remaining count.

The applicant sought certiorari and mandamus to quash the refusal and review the stay.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error by the Justice of the Peace and confirming the Crown Attorney's absolute discretion to stay the charge.

The applicant, who had been convicted of fraud, applied to reopen a stay of proceedings application based on alleged Charter violations.

He argued that his s. 8 rights were violated by the frequent and allegedly public manner of strip searches while in pre-trial custody, and that his s. 7 rights were violated by the previous Crown counsel's refusal to consent to an adjournment amidst late disclosure.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the strip searches were conducted in accordance with policy and justified by institutional security concerns, and that the Crown's conduct did not amount to bad faith or shock the conscience of the community.

The court concluded that this was not one of the clearest of cases warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay of proceedings.

The applicant was found guilty of fraud over $5,000.

In the same reasons for judgment, the trial judge dismissed the applicant's pre-trial application for a stay of proceedings based on alleged abuse of process by correctional officers, without allowing a full evidentiary record.

The applicant brought an application for a mistrial, arguing the denial of procedural fairness gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias tainting the entire proceeding.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and concluding that re-opening the stay application to allow a full evidentiary record was the appropriate and proportionate remedy.