Lorne M. Honickman

The respondent successfully sued her mother for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to protect her from sexual abuse by her father during her childhood.

The mother appealed, arguing the action was barred by the equitable doctrine of laches due to the 42-year delay in bringing the claim, and that she was powerless to intervene.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal on liability, finding no acquiescence by the respondent and that the mother failed to establish she was unable to protect her daughter.

However, the Court allowed the appeal in part regarding damages, reducing the award for lost income from $100,000 to $20,000 due to a lack of evidentiary foundation for the higher amount.

A cross-appeal regarding trial costs was dismissed.

The appellant, a newspaper reporter, wrote an article that breached a publication ban under s. 486(5) of the Criminal Code.

Neither the reporter nor the newspaper knew of the ban.

The trial judge acquitted the reporter as a principal but convicted the newspaper.

On summary conviction appeal, the reporter was convicted as an aider and abettor under s. 21(1) of the Criminal Code based on an objective mens rea standard.

The Court of Appeal allowed the reporter's appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that liability as an aider or abettor under s. 21(1)(b) or (c) requires subjective mens rea, specifically knowledge of the circumstances constituting the offence.