Douglas Forsyth Harrison

The offender was convicted following a focused Charter voir dire of possession of 75 grams of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking contrary to s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offender admitted possession and that the methamphetamine was for trafficking purposes.

The offender had a prior record including a 2016 conviction for possession of methamphetamine.

The sentencing court imposed a 30-month custodial sentence, considering the significant quantity of the dangerous Schedule 1 substance, the offender's motivation for financial gain, prior related convictions, and mitigating factors including child care responsibilities and prospects for rehabilitation.

Crystallex International Corporation applied for the recognition and enforcement of a US $1.202 billion international arbitration award against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.

The award stemmed from Venezuela's expropriation of Crystallex's investment in a gold mining project, in breach of a bilateral investment treaty.

The court found that service on Venezuela was properly effected under the State Immunity Act and that Crystallex satisfied the requirements of Article 35 of the UNCITRAL Model Law for recognition and enforcement.

No grounds for refusal under Article 36 were raised or found, as the dispute was arbitrable and enforcement consistent with Ontario public policy.

The court granted the order for recognition and enforcement, including pre and post-award interest, and awarded costs to Crystallex.

Following a successful motion, the defendants sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff objected to several items in the defendants’ costs outline, including recovery of costs for cross-examining the plaintiff’s affiant, the attendance of two defence lawyers at a cross-examination in London, and recovery of business class airfare.

The court held that the cross-examination was reasonable and materially relied upon in the reasons for judgment, and that it was reasonable for two lawyers to attend given the complexity and stakes of the litigation involving a foreign government.

However, applying principles of proportionality and fairness in costs awards, the court found that business class airfare should not be imposed on the opposing party and reduced the disbursement to the equivalent of economy travel.

Costs were awarded accordingly.

The applicants, companies engaged in leasing motor vehicles and equipment, sought a declaration that the Bulk Sales Act did not apply to a proposed asset securitization financing transaction involving the periodic sale of leases and related equipment to a special purpose vehicle.

The transaction was designed to raise operational financing while the applicants continued operating their businesses.

The court examined the purpose and scope of the Bulk Sales Act and the definition of a "sale in bulk".

It held that the proposed transaction constituted an ordinary-course financing technique and did not amount to a sale of assets out of the usual course of business.

Accordingly, the Act did not apply to the transaction.