Ernest A. Hawrish

The appellants appealed their convictions for fraud, arguing that the trial judge erred on questions of fact.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judgment, which had been confirmed by the Court of Appeal.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with the terms of a probation order.

The appellant argued that the presiding judge did not personally explain the consequences of a breach as required by s. 663(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the requirements of s. 663(4)(a), (b), and (c) are administrative provisions that can be delegated once the probation order is made by the judge.

The Court found that the accused was properly advised of the consequences by the Deputy Clerk and knew of the consequences.