3 total
Law Society Act binds Crown employees providing legal services; WSIA exemption not extended.
The applicant regulator sought declarations that the Law Society Act licensing requirements for paralegals apply to provincial Crown employees providing legal services, including those advising or representing workers in employer reprisal matters under s. 50 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The union argued that the Crown was immune from the Act and alternatively that a by-law exemption applicable to legal services under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act extended to these matters.
The court held that although the statute does not expressly bind the Crown, it does so by necessary implication because the Act’s purpose is to protect the public through licensing of legal service providers.
Allowing Crown employees to provide legal services without licensing would frustrate that purpose and produce an absurd regulatory gap.
The court further held that the by-law exemption is limited to services relating to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act and does not extend to Occupational Health and Safety Act reprisal proceedings.
SIU has jurisdiction to investigate historical criminal offences committed by retired police officers while serving.
The Peel Regional Police received a complaint regarding historical sexual assaults allegedly committed by a former police officer in 1981 or 1982.
The Special Investigations Unit (SIU) commenced an investigation, and the police force challenged the SIU's jurisdiction on the basis that the officers had retired and the alleged offences occurred prior to the SIU's creation in 1990.
The application judge dismissed the jurisdictional challenge.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed that section 113(5) of the Police Services Act grants the SIU jurisdiction to investigate alleged criminal offences committed by persons who were serving police officers at the time of the conduct, regardless of their current employment status.
The Court also held that the provision is procedural in nature and therefore applies retrospectively to offences committed before 1990.
Appeal dismissed; forfeiture of 380,000 EUR under commercial settlement agreement was not unconscionable.
The parties, both sophisticated commercial entities, entered into Minutes of Settlement requiring the appellant to pay 1 million EUR over two years.
The agreement stipulated that upon default, the appellant would consent to judgment for 1 million EUR without credit for prior payments.
After paying 380,000 EUR, the appellant defaulted.
The motion judge granted summary judgment for 1 million EUR and dismissed the appellant's claim for relief from forfeiture.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the forfeited amount was neither disproportionate in law nor unconscionable in equity, as the provision was designed to incentivize compliance.
