M. Anderson

The appellant, a lawyer, appealed a Law Society Tribunal decision finding he committed professional misconduct during two criminal trials by engaging in uncivil behaviour, failing to competently represent his client, and failing to act with integrity.

The Hearing Panel imposed a three-month suspension and ordered $225,000 in costs.

On appeal to the Divisional Court, the appellant argued the Hearing Panel erred in its application of the test for incivility, improperly admitted expert evidence on the standard of competence, and imposed an unfit penalty and costs award.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal.

The majority upheld the findings of misconduct, concluding the appellant's baseless allegations of racial bias and impropriety against trial judges and Crown counsel crossed the line of resolute advocacy.

The court also upheld the penalty and the costs award, finding the Hearing Panel properly considered the appellant's financial circumstances and his conduct in unnecessarily lengthening the disciplinary proceedings.

One judge dissented in part, concluding the costs award was disproportionate and effectively punitive.

The applicant, subject to a deportation order since 1995 due to serious criminality, had been held in immigration detention for over seven years because authorities could not determine his country of citizenship.

Despite numerous detention reviews maintaining his detention, the applicant sought habeas corpus, challenging his continued detention as unlawful.

The Superior Court allowed the application, finding the detention unduly lengthy and its duration uncertain, thereby violating the applicant's rights under sections 7 and 9 of the Charter.

The court concluded that the applicant was not actively thwarting removal efforts and posed a limited public risk, and that the Minister failed to justify continued detention for immigration purposes.

The applicant was ordered released on specific terms and conditions.

The plaintiff, Apotex Inc., was required to show cause at a status hearing why its action against the defendant should not be dismissed for delay under Rule 48.14(3).

The defendant argued that the plaintiff failed to meet the two-part test from Khan, requiring an acceptable explanation for the delay and proof of no non-compensable prejudice.

The Master applied a contextual approach, finding that ongoing settlement discussions provided a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Although the plaintiff did not fully prove an absence of prejudice, the Master concluded that fairness and the preference for deciding cases on their merits outweighed the delay, allowing the action to continue.