Emilie Taman

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting of default.

The defendant also sought orders to stay the action pending a criminal proceeding and to seal evidence, but these were not considered as the defendant, being in default, had no right to request such relief without leave.

The court applied the seven-factor test for setting aside default, considering the parties' conduct, the length and reasons for delay (including the defendant's mental health issues), the complexity and value of the claim, and the balance of prejudice.

Despite the defendant's obstructive behaviour during cross-examination, the court emphasized the principle of resolving civil proceedings on their merits.

The motion to set aside the noting of default was granted, with conditions for the defendant to file a compliant statement of defence and pay costs thrown away.

The accused was prosecuted for multiple offences arising from a scheme involving the private “Group of Five” refugee sponsorship program.

The Crown alleged that the accused submitted large numbers of sponsorship applications supported by forged bank letters, fabricated pay stubs, and identity documents belonging to purported sponsors.

Evidence showed the accused possessed extensive copies of personal identification, draft financial letters, and materials used to fabricate documentation.

The court found the accused lacked credibility and concluded that the documentary and circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he forged documents, used forged documents, possessed identity information for fraudulent purposes, and made misrepresentations under immigration legislation.

The court also found the accused offered a bribe to an immigration officer to expedite applications.

However, the court acquitted the accused on the charge of organizing illegal entry under IRPA because the refugees entered Canada with valid travel documents.

The accused applied for a declaration that s. 117 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which criminalizes organizing the entry of undocumented persons into Canada, was unconstitutionally overbroad contrary to s. 7 of the Charter.

The applicant argued the provision captured humanitarian actors and family members assisting refugees, thereby exceeding Parliament’s intent.

The court held the legislative objective of the provision is border control and immigration system integrity, and that Parliament intentionally enacted a broad offence without exemptions.

Relying heavily on appellate authority, the court found the provision’s scope aligned with its objective and therefore not overbroad.

The constitutional challenge was dismissed.

The appellant appealed summary conviction findings under the Fisheries Act arising from a highway washout that deposited debris into fish-bearing waters and damaged fish habitat.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in rejecting a due diligence defence and in concluding that a highway and culvert constituted a “work or undertaking” under the Act, and further argued that the Kienapple principle should bar convictions on both counts.

The court held that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error in rejecting the due diligence defence and properly applied the relevant factors.

It further held that maintaining road infrastructure constitutes “carrying on a work or undertaking” for the purposes of s. 35 of the Fisheries Act and that the two offences addressed distinct statutory purposes.

The appeal was dismissed.