Fraud

The appellant appealed the restitution and fine in lieu of forfeiture orders imposed following his conviction for five counts of fraud over $5,000.

He argued the orders were unfair and based on a misinterpretation of the fraud amount.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant did not contest the restitution order at sentencing and the preconditions for the fine in lieu of forfeiture were met.

The three-year sentence in default of payment was the statutory minimum.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a Mareva injunction to restrain the defendants from dissipating assets pending the resolution of a breach of contract action related to a vendor take back mortgage.

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants defaulted on several obligations and were dissipating assets, pointing to a declining business and the refinancing of a principal residence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraud or that the defendants were attempting to remove or dissipate assets to avoid judgment.

The appellants were victims of a wire fraud and sought to freeze the recipient bank account.

A case management judge ordered the parties to attend a case conference to address the freeze and the account holder's motion to release funds.

However, a different motion judge subsequently granted the account holder's motion in writing without notice to the appellants, permitting the release of $10,000 per month.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred by making an order that conflicted with the prior case management direction and breached procedural fairness by refusing to reconsider the order once notified of the lack of service.

The appellant appealed his committal for extradition to the United States on charges related to a large-scale lottery fraud scheme, and sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's surrender decision.

The appellant argued that the requirement of double criminality was not met because his alleged conduct predated the relevant Criminal Code amendments, and challenged the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that under s. 29(4) of the Extradition Act, double criminality is assessed at the date of the Authority to Proceed.

The Court also found the evidence admissible and sufficient to justify committal, and upheld the Minister's surrender decision as reasonable.