Lorne Levine

The appellants sought to enforce a Florida default judgment for damages arising from a real estate transaction against the respondents in Ontario.

The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the Florida judgment was obtained by fraud and its enforcement would contravene public policy.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against most respondents, holding that the fraud defence requires newly discovered facts that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, which the respondents failed to demonstrate.

The public policy defence was also rejected.

However, the appeal was dismissed against one respondent whose absolute discharge from bankruptcy released her from the judgment debt.

The accused was acquitted at trial of sexual assault.

The Crown appealed, arguing the trial judge made several errors in his charge to the jury, including mischaracterizing evidence, failing to properly instruct on prior inconsistent statements, and improperly leaving the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent to the jury.

The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the cumulative effect of the trial judge's errors was significant and that there was no evidentiary foundation to lend an air of reality to the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent.