Mark Johnston

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision granting judgment in the amount of $55,555.55 in accordance with a Rule 49 offer to settle.

The appellants claimed the offer had been revoked before acceptance, arguing it was revoked orally at a pretrial conference and subsequently by a second written offer.

The respondent contended the first offer had not been effectively revoked and that acceptance occurred before service of the second offer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that Rule 49 offers can only be revoked in writing, and that the respondent's acceptance of the first offer preceded service of the second offer based on credible evidence and the appellants' failure to provide an affidavit of service.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning the first-degree murder of Dady Junior Jean on November 4, 2015.

Four defendants were charged: Dominique P. Chrétien, Johnnie-Dean Locey-Derochie, Candy L. Locey, and Todd S. Turner.

The Crown sought committal of all four on first-degree murder.

The court examined whether there was sufficient evidence to commit each defendant to trial on first-degree murder, considering the elements of planning and deliberation.

The court found that the cumulative circumstantial evidence, including motive, opportunity, communications, procurement of a firearm, and coordinated actions, supported reasonable inferences that all four defendants knew of and participated in a planned and deliberate murder.

All four defendants were committed to trial on first-degree murder.

The accused was charged with undertaking to communicate with a public office holder for payment and failing to file a return with the Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying, contrary to section 5(1) of the Lobbying Act.

This is a strict liability offence.

The central issue was whether the accused, as an employee of a lobbying firm, was required to file an individual return under section 5(1) or whether the corporation's filing obligation under section 7 applied.

The court found that the accused, as an individual consultant lobbyist, was required to file a return within 10 days of undertaking to communicate with public office holders on behalf of a third-party client for payment.

The court rejected arguments that the exception in section 5(6) applied or that section 7 was the governing provision.

The applicant challenged the constitutionality of the Lobbying Act on two grounds: first, that the offence and punishment provisions conflict with rights granted in the English Bill of Rights, 1689, and second, that the provisions infringe freedom of expression under section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant, a paid consultant lobbyist, failed to file a prescribed return disclosing lobbying activities on behalf of a client.

The court rejected both constitutional challenges, finding that the legislation does not impede the right to petition government and does not restrict freedom of expression, as it only imposes reporting obligations on paid lobbyists while preserving the ability of clients and individuals to lobby directly without restriction.

Following a 19-day trial, the accused was convicted of 60 firearms and weapons offences, including possession of prohibited and restricted firearms with readily accessible ammunition, breach of prohibition orders, unsafe storage of firearms, and possession of firearms with removed serial numbers.

The accused, a former RCMP officer and convicted gun trafficker on federal parole, was arrested after police executed a high-risk search warrant and seized 67 firearms, prohibited devices, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and explosives from his residence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years 9 months (resulting in 6 years after pre-trial custody credit), with consecutive sentences for breach of prohibition orders.

The court also granted a 3-month sentencing remission as a remedy for the accused's unlawful detention for 15 days without being brought before a judicial officer, which constituted an abuse of process and breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A 57-year-old retired RCMP officer was charged with 60 firearm and weapons offences following a search warrant execution at his residence.

The court found the search lawful and the seizure of 67 firearms, prohibited weapons, and explosives justified.

However, the court found serious Charter breaches: the accused was unlawfully detained for 15 days without being brought before a justice, in violation of section 503 of the Criminal Code and sections 7 and 9 of the Charter.

The court also found a breach of section 8 rights regarding the destruction of commercial explosives without judicial authorization.

Despite these breaches, the court convicted the accused on 60 counts, excluding evidence derived from the unlawful detention and imposing a sentencing remission as remedy.