Matthew Britton

The applicant, a respondent in an insider trading proceeding, brought a pre-hearing motion seeking a ruling that the Commission could not make a public interest order against her under section 127 of the Securities Act if Staff failed to prove the specific allegation of insider trading under section 76(1).

A prior panel had dismissed the same motion as premature.

The Hearing Panel agreed with the prior panel, holding that it was inappropriate to tie the hands of the decision-makers before hearing the evidence and closing submissions.

The motion was dismissed as premature.

The applicants brought an application under sections 104 and 127 of the Securities Act regarding an alleged issuer bid by Technovision Systems Inc. The respondents and Commission staff brought preliminary motions to stay or dismiss the application.

The Commission found that the applicant Urquhart had previously litigated the same issues in British Columbia and Ontario courts, where her claims were dismissed or stayed.

The Commission held that section 104 is intended for ongoing bids, not completed ones, and section 127 cannot be used to remedy private harm.

The application was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process against Urquhart, and permanently stayed against the other applicants, as the matter was a private dispute properly suited for civil courts.

The Crown appealed a decision substituting a conditional sentence for an 18-month custodial sentence imposed after guilty pleas to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The Court held that Bill C-41 and the conditional sentencing provisions were enacted to reduce incarceration and promote restorative justice, but conditional sentences remain punitive sanctions distinct from probation and generally should include restrictive conditions such as house arrest.

The Court interpreted s. 742.1 purposively, holding that the sentencing judge need not first fix an equivalent jail term before considering community service of the sentence, and that community safety is a threshold inquiry focused on the specific offender's risk of reoffending and potential harm.

While conditional sentences may satisfy denunciation and deterrence in appropriate cases, the sentencing judge's decision to impose jail here was not demonstrably unfit.

The appeal was allowed, the custodial sentence restored, and its service stayed because the respondent had already completed the conditional sentence.

The respondent, a lawyer, was convicted of six counts of breach of trust for converting trust money to his general account.

He was sentenced to two years' incarceration.

Prior to his appeal, Bill C-41 came into force, introducing the conditional sentencing regime.

The Court of Appeal reduced his sentence by one day and imposed a conditional sentence.

The Crown appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent was entitled to the benefit of the new sentencing provisions, and that the Court of Appeal's imposition of a conditional sentence was not disproportionately lenient given the mitigating factors.

The accused, an employer, was convicted of sexual assault and common assault against a young employee.

At trial, he was sentenced to one year of incarceration for the sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal substituted a six-month conditional sentence, applying new sentencing provisions enacted after the trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the Crown's appeal, holding that while the accused was entitled to the benefit of the new conditional sentencing regime, a conditional sentence was unfit given the gravity of the offence and the abuse of a position of authority.

The original sentence of incarceration was restored but stayed as the conditional sentence had already been served.