David Wilson

A solicitor brought an application to set aside a consent order referring the solicitor’s account to an Assessment Officer for assessment.

The solicitor argued the Assessment Officer lacked jurisdiction and that consent did not prevent the court from setting aside the order.

The court held that the only dispute raised by the client concerned the quantum of the account and that the assessment properly fell within the officer’s jurisdiction under the Courts of Justice Act.

The interests of justice did not justify setting aside the consent order.

The application was dismissed and the client was awarded costs.

The applicant sought bail pending his appeal against conviction for selling cocaine.

The applicant argued that the trial verdict was unreasonable and that the trial judge made errors in analyzing the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no merit in the appeal given the overwhelming identification evidence from undercover and surveillance officers, the recovery of marked money, and the seizure of the cell phone used to arrange the drug buys.

The appellant appealed his convictions for drug trafficking offences and his six-year sentence.

He argued that errors by the Vietnamese interpreter deprived him of his right to make full answer and defence, and that the trial judge erred in applying the parity principle given his co-accused's four-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the translation errors minor.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the court found no error in the trial judge's application of the parity principle, noting the co-accused had pleaded guilty.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his solicitor negligence action for delay under Rule 24.01(1).

This was the appellant's third action dismissed for delay, stemming from a 1956 construction contract dispute.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's findings that the appellant was responsible for the delay, that there was no justifiable excuse, and that the defendants suffered prejudice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant, a member of the regular armed forces, was convicted by a Standing Court Martial of trafficking and possession of narcotics under the Narcotic Control Act, pursuant to section 120 of the National Defence Act.

He appealed on the grounds that trial by a military tribunal for ordinary criminal offences deprived him of his right to an independent and impartial tribunal and his right to equality before the law under the Canadian Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the military justice system was established pursuant to a valid federal objective under section 91(7) of the British North America Act and did not offend the Canadian Bill of Rights.