Jennifer Malabar

The Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) objected to fee requests from Emmanuel Village Residence Inc. (EVR) and its counsel, and BDO Canada Inc. (the Receiver) and its counsel, for work performed in a receivership and forfeiture proceeding.

The AGO argued that an administration charge should cap fees, that section 5 of the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 (CRA) applied requiring proof of no other funding source, and that hourly rates were too high.

The court dismissed the AGO's objections, finding that the administration charge was not a cap, section 5 of the CRA did not apply, and the hourly rates were reasonable and previously approved.

The court approved the fees and disbursements, emphasizing the complexity caused by the joinder of receivership and forfeiture proceedings.

The appellant appealed a forfeiture order granted by the application judge under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The application judge had ordered forfeiture of approximately $44,425 in Canadian currency found by police during a search warrant execution on a camping trailer owned by the appellant during a drug investigation.

The appellant argued that the application judge failed to provide adequate reasons for concluding the funds were proceeds or instruments of unlawful activity.

The Court of Appeal rejected this argument, finding the application judge was entitled to accept the uncontradicted expert opinion and gave cogent reasons for rejecting the appellant's explanation.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant in a receivership proceeding sought approval of its counsel's fees to be paid from an administration charge.

The Attorney General opposed, arguing that the fees should only cover work related to the receivership and not the concurrent forfeiture proceedings.

The court rejected this distinction, finding that the forfeiture application created barriers to the sale of the business that counsel had to address.

The court found the fees reasonable and approved them.

Emmanuel Village Residence Inc. (EVR) brought a motion to increase an administration charge in a receivership proceeding, which had been consolidated with a forfeiture application by the Attorney General of Ontario (AGO) under the Civil Remedies Act.

The AGO opposed the increase and the continuation of a sealing order.

The court granted EVR's motion, increasing the administration charge from $350,000 to $700,000, finding that it would be "clearly not in the interests of justice" to deny payment to the professionals facilitating the sale of the property.

The court also granted the continuation of the sealing order until the property is sold.

The Attorney General brought a civil forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 seeking forfeiture of $44,425 seized from a camping trailer during execution of a search warrant.

Police located cocaine, marijuana, cutting agents, digital scales, packaging materials, and large bundles of cash, and ion testing showed cocaine traces throughout the trailer.

The responding owner asserted the money was lawfully derived from cash automobile sales and stored in the trailer due to personal and financial circumstances.

The court admitted expert evidence linking the packaging and denominations of the cash to drug trafficking and found the respondent’s explanation not credible.

On the balance of probabilities, the court held the currency constituted proceeds and/or an instrument of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking and ordered forfeiture to the Crown.

A worker employed by a small roofing company fell from a ladder while working on a residential roofing project and died from his injuries.

The company was convicted of failing to ensure a fall arrest system was in place and failing to notify the Ministry within 48 hours of the death.

The owner and operator was convicted of failing to ensure workers used fall arrest systems as a supervisor and furnishing false information to an inspector.

The court imposed jail sentences on the individual defendant and substantial fines on the corporate defendant, emphasizing the need for general deterrence in an industry with persistent fall-related injuries and fatalities.

The defendant, Linamar Holdings Inc. operating as Transgear Manufacturing, was sentenced following a guilty plea and joint submission for a serious workplace injury to an employee.

The court imposed a fine of $150,000.00 plus costs and surcharge, payable within 90 days.

The sentencing considered the defendant's prior convictions at neighbouring facilities (one fatality and one critical injury), the immediate corrective actions taken by the defendant following the incident, and ongoing safety improvements implemented to address workplace hazards related to lockout and troubleshooting procedures on hazardous machinery.

The Ontario Ministry of Labour prosecuted Linamar Holdings Inc. (operating as Transgear Manufacturing) on three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace accident on May 20, 2009, in which a certified millwright, Amelio Aramini, was electrocuted while troubleshooting a leak in an induction hardening machine (KVA 003).

Count 1 alleged failure to ensure prescribed measures under Ontario Regulation 851, section 41 regarding signage in rooms or similar enclosures containing exposed live electrical parts.

Count 2 alleged failure to provide information, instruction, and supervision regarding safe troubleshooting procedures and electrical hazards.

Count 3 alleged failure to acquaint the worker with electrical hazards.

The court found the defendant guilty on Count 2 only, dismissing Counts 1 and 3.

The decision emphasizes that troubleshooting is an exception to lockout procedures, that the defendant failed to provide adequate machine-specific guidance for troubleshooting, and that the unmarked electrical bus bars resembling water pipes contributed to the accident.