Kelly A. Gorman

Sentencing decision following guilty pleas to three counts of fraud over $5,000 involving approximately $116,500 obtained from close family members.

The offender, a lawyer, induced the victims to invest in his company by promising high returns and providing false documentation showing fictitious profits.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence, particularly where a professional abuses both a legal and familial position of trust.

Aggravating factors included the significant amount of money, multiple victims, prolonged deception, and breach of trust as a lawyer.

The court concluded that a conditional sentence was inappropriate and imposed a custodial sentence.

The Crown brought an application seeking a ruling on whether the new self‑defence provisions enacted by the Citizen’s Arrest and Self‑defence Act, which replaced former Criminal Code ss. 34–37 and came into force March 11, 2013, applied retrospectively to offences committed before that date.

The accused was charged with multiple assault‑related offences arising from an incident in his apartment and intended to rely on self‑defence and defence of property at a judge‑and‑jury trial.

The court reviewed conflicting authorities across Canadian jurisdictions regarding whether the new provisions operate prospectively only or also apply to earlier conduct.

Emphasizing the remedial purpose of the amendments and the need for clear jury instructions, the court concluded that the presumption against retrospectivity was rebutted in these circumstances.

The jury would therefore be instructed under the new self‑defence provisions.

The appellant appealed a conviction for care and control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit and a sentence of six months’ imprisonment with a four-year driving prohibition.

The appellant argued the roadside screening demand was not made “forthwith” under s. 254(2) of the Criminal Code and alleged Charter breaches under ss. 8, 9, and 10.

The court held the demand was made promptly in the circumstances, noting the officer acted reasonably in securing the scene of a collision and arranging for an approved screening device.

However, the sentencing judge improperly treated the appellant as the cause of the collision using a balance of probabilities standard rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt for an aggravating factor.

The conviction appeal was dismissed but the sentence appeal was allowed and the custodial term and driving prohibition were reduced.

The appellant insurer appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding it liable for the loss of 76 hogs under a farm insurance policy and finding it negligent in training its captive agent.

The respondent cross-appealed the trial judge's failure to make a Sanderson or Bullock order regarding the successful agent's costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, finding the trial judge reasonably concluded the insurer failed to prove the 'piling' exclusion applied.

The court allowed the cross-appeal, issuing a Sanderson order requiring the insurer to pay the successful agent's costs of $2,000.