Michael Burokas

The Registrar appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision directing the Registrar not to revoke the respondent's funeral preplanner licence.

The respondent had misused client funds, but the LAT found she did not personally benefit and her past conduct did not give reason to believe she would fail to act with honesty and integrity in the future.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the LAT made no reviewable errors in its application of section 14(1)(b)(ii) of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002, and properly considered the respondent's motivations.

The applicant sought judicial review of a notice from the Travel Industry Council of Ontario (TICO) requiring it to register as a travel agent or face potential charges under the Travel Industry Act, 2002.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application at the outset of the hearing, finding it lacked jurisdiction.

The court held that TICO's notice was not an exercise of a statutory power of decision under the Judicial Review Procedure Act, as TICO only has the power to seek an injunction or initiate a prosecution, not to unilaterally decide the applicant's legal rights.

A case management conference was held to provide procedural directions for an upcoming application for judicial review.

The court ordered that the hearing proceed via video conference using ZOOM technology.

Directions were provided regarding the use of a password-protected electronic dropbox for document filing, formatting of electronic materials, and the submission of factums, compendiums, and costs outlines.

The appellant appealed a sentence of 30 days custody imposed for being an unregistered motor vehicle dealer contrary to section 4(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2002.

The sentencing judge imposed custody based on the appellant's prior convictions for fraud, unpaid fines and restitution, and an outstanding restitution order.

The appellate court found two errors in principle: first, the sentencing objective was specific deterrence of the appellant rather than general deterrence within a regulatory framework; second, the sentencing judge improperly equated the appellant's past fraudulent conduct with the regulatory offence of being an unregistered dealer.

The court held that the 30-day custodial sentence was clearly excessive and varied it to a fine of $7,500.00 plus administrative costs.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and touching for a sexual purpose arising from an allegation that he kissed a 12-year-old family friend on the cheek while she was resting in bed.

The trial judge accepted the complainant's evidence that the kiss occurred and rejected the accused's account that he merely said “Boo!” from the doorway.

Applying the criminal burden of proof and the objective inquiry into whether the touching occurred in circumstances of a sexual nature, the court held that the evidence left a reasonable doubt as to whether the kiss was sexual rather than a foolish, offensive prank.

The accused was acquitted on all charges.