Jay L. Naster

The parties consented to an order fixing the costs of the appeal.

The court ordered the appellants to pay $15,000 in costs to the respondent.

The appellants appealed a decision of the Ontario Securities Commission finding they perpetrated a fraud relating to securities and breached their duties as investment fund managers.

The appellants argued the Commission lost jurisdiction when a single commissioner proceeded with the sanctions hearing after the other commissioner's appointment expired.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Statutory Powers Procedure Act permitted the Commission to override quorum requirements to proceed expeditiously.

The Court also upheld the Commission's findings of fraud, concluding that subjective awareness of the intended consequences could be inferred from the appellants' actions, and affirmed the sanctions imposed, including significant disgorgement orders.

The appellant, a target of a Canadian criminal investigation into chocolate price-fixing, appealed an order enforcing a US Letter of Request compelling him to testify in a US class action.

He argued that compelling his testimony would violate his right to silence under section 7 of the Charter and provide the Competition Bureau with an unfair advantage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's rights were adequately protected by use immunity under section 13 of the Charter and the Evidence Acts.

The Court added three conditions to the order to further restrict the Competition Bureau's access to the compelled testimony.

The applicants, several police officers, brought a motion for a limited publication ban regarding Notices of Hearing and the Chief of Police's report.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding that inadequate notice was given for the relief regarding the Notices of Hearing, and that the applicants failed to satisfy the Dagenais/Mentuck test for a publication ban on the Chief's report, agreeing with the prior endorsement of the motion judge.

The applicants, a lawyer and his law firm, sought judicial review to prohibit the Ontario Securities Commission from continuing proceedings against the lawyer under s. 127(1) of the Securities Act.

The Commission alleged the lawyer made misleading statements in a letter during a prospectus review.

The applicants and the Law Society of Upper Canada argued the Commission lacked jurisdiction to discipline lawyers acting in a professional capacity, asserting such power belonged exclusively to the Law Society and that the Commission's exercise of it violated the independence of the bar.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that s. 127(1) applies to lawyers and that the Commission's public interest jurisdiction to control its processes does not usurp the Law Society's role or infringe the rule of law.

The appellant appealed from a judgment of the Court of Appeal for Ontario which allowed the Crown's appeal from an acquittal on a charge of first degree murder and ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Court of Appeal that a new trial should be held, but agreeing with the trial judge that the accused's statement was properly excluded due to a violation of the right to counsel.

The appellant appealed his conviction for first degree murder, which was based on the murder occurring during a forcible confinement.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the reasons of the majority in the Court of Appeal for Ontario.