C. Watson

Following a family law trial where the applicant wife was largely successful, she sought costs of $11,042.34 on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the settlement offers and found the applicant's offer was reasonable while the respondent's was not.

However, considering the respondent's difficult personal circumstances, including health problems and unemployment, the court tempered the costs award and ordered the respondent to pay $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellants appealed their convictions and sentences for trading in securities without registration and while subject to a prior cease-trade order.

They argued the trial judge erred in finding they had knowledge of the order, that the Ontario Securities Commission lacked jurisdiction because the trades involved foreign companies and investors, and that the custodial sentences were unfit.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the offences were strict liability, that a real and substantial connection to Ontario gave the province jurisdiction under the Libman test, and that the sentences were appropriate given the appellants' moral blameworthiness and prior breaches.

The applicants sought certiorari to quash a provincial offences information alleging contraventions of s. 122(1)(c) of the Securities Act, arguing that the Ontario Court of Justice exceeded jurisdiction when it refused to quash a second information sworn without obtaining new prosecutorial consent.

The court held that the impugned ruling concerned the validity of the information and therefore fell within matters for which certiorari relief is barred where an appeal route exists under s. 141(3) of the Provincial Offences Act.

In any event, the court found the justice properly determined that the second information merely split an existing count to reflect statutory amendments and introduced no new offences.

The original consent to prosecute therefore remained valid.

The certiorari application was dismissed.