Daniel Lawson

The appellant, a real estate lawyer, appealed the dismissal of his claims of civil fraud and equitable fraud against his former real estate clerk and her husband.

The appellant alleged they used his law office to facilitate fraudulent schemes.

The trial judge dismissed the claims, finding the appellant failed to prove false representations were made to him and that there was no unconscionable conduct for equitable fraud.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no palpable and overriding error in the factual findings or legal application, and dismissed the appeal.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking specific performance of an agreement of purchase and sale for a custom-built home after the defendant purchaser failed to close.

The purchaser argued the agreement was complex, he lacked English skills, and his agent had a conflict of interest, but provided no legal basis to void the contract.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, upheld the agreement, and ordered specific performance, noting the home's customized features and the difficulty of assessing damages due to unsold inventory.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference involving a child complainant.

The Crown cross-appealed the conditional sentence, arguing it was illegal due to a mandatory minimum.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge misapprehended significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence regarding the location and frequency of the alleged assaults.

As this misapprehension played an essential part in the trial judge's credibility assessment, the conviction appeal was allowed, the convictions were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown's cross-appeal against sentence was dismissed in light of the successful conviction appeal.

The appellant appealed his convictions for possession of stolen goods and his 15-month sentence.

The Crown's case relied on video surveillance identifying the appellant supervising the export of stolen high-end vehicles.

The appellant argued the video quality was insufficient for identification.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge's assessment of the video quality was reasonable.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the 15-month sentence was not manifestly unfit given the appellant's prior criminal record and his directing role in the sophisticated scheme.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his action after an adjournment was refused.

The Court of Appeal found that in the exceptional circumstances of the case, an adjournment should have been granted.

The appeal was allowed and the order dismissing the action was set aside, subject to strict conditions including setting the action down for trial within 30 days, proceeding on a peremptory basis, and depositing $5,000 as security for costs.

The accused was charged with sexual offences against former students.

One of the complainants brought a civil action against the accused and the school board.

The accused sought production of the complainant's civil litigation file to assess his motive to fabricate or exaggerate the incidents of abuse.

The trial judge ordered the production of the file.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, holding that solicitor-client privilege should only yield to an accused's right to make full answer and defence in rare circumstances where core issues going to guilt are involved and there is a genuine risk of wrongful conviction.

The Court established a two-stage 'innocence at stake' test, which was not met in this case.

The appellant, a senior airport customs inspector, was convicted of importing cannabis and breach of trust after escorting two individuals carrying drugs through customs.

She appealed her convictions, arguing that the trial judge's jury instructions on the meaning of reasonable doubt were defective in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's decisions in R. v. Lifchus and R. v. Starr.

The Court of Appeal held that the jury charge, considered as a whole, did not give rise to a reasonable likelihood that the jury misapprehended the standard of proof.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of possession of stolen property and appealed, arguing the trial judge misdirected the jury on the meaning of reasonable doubt.

The trial judge's instruction equated reasonable doubt with an 'honest doubt' and 'fair doubt' without locating the standard above the probability level.

Applying recent Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on pre-Lifchus jury charges, the Court of Appeal held the instruction was inadequate and constituted reversible error.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed convictions for trafficking in cocaine and conspiracy to traffick in cocaine arising from a jury trial.

During deliberations, the jury asked whether defence counsel had been appointed by the court, and the trial judge answered that question in the negative while also instructing that the matter was irrelevant.

The court held that the jury should instead have been told there was no evidence on the point, that it was totally irrelevant, and that they should not speculate about it.

Because the response introduced potentially prejudicial information bearing on the appellant's financial means and impaired the appearance of trial fairness, the appeal was allowed, the conviction was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.