Melissa Adams

Travelers Insurance Company of Canada appealed the dismissal of part of its subrogated claim for payment from proceeds of crime forfeited to the Crown.

The core issue was whether Travelers had an interest in the forfeited property by way of a constructive trust due to the Crown's erroneous failure to include Travelers' subrogated claim (Xpertdoc) in the initial restitution order.

The Court of Appeal found that the Crown's erroneous omissions, combined with the near certainty that restitution would have been made, amounted to unjust enrichment, supporting a constructive trust in Travelers' favour.

The appeal was allowed, and Travelers was granted relief from forfeiture for the full amount of the Xpertdoc claim.

The moving party defendants in a proposed class proceeding related to the 'Freedom Convoy' sought access to $200,000 of frozen escrow funds to retain counsel.

The funds were originally frozen by a Mareva injunction and a criminal restraint order, and were raised through crowdfunding platforms to support convoy participants.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the funds were not the personal assets of the defendants and that the moving parties failed to provide full and frank financial disclosure to demonstrate impecuniosity or an inability to defend the action without access to the frozen funds.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions related to a Mareva injunction in a class proceeding concerning the 'Freedom Convoy' funds.

The court extended the Mareva injunction with modifications, adjourned motions to dissolve the injunction and amend the statement of claim, and granted a Toronto Dominion Bank interpleader motion to transfer funds to an escrow agent.

The decision also clarified the interplay between the civil Mareva injunction and criminal restraint orders, and addressed issues concerning cryptocurrency seized by police and funds held by a third-party fundraising platform, GiveSendGo LLC.

The court emphasized the importance of keeping separate proceedings distinct while managing related matters.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to extend an ex parte Mareva injunction previously granted against organizers and funders of the Freedom Convoy.

The injunction aimed to restrain the dissipation of assets for potential civil liability to Ottawa residents and businesses.

The court granted a temporary extension and modification of the injunction by consent, allowing certain funds to be transferred to an escrow agent, and adjourned the motion for a further hearing.

The decision emphasized the civil nature of the proceeding, separate from criminal processes.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on dangerous driving causing bodily harm under section 249(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in his analysis of the mens rea component by relying on the respondent's lack of deliberate intention to create danger and failed to consider all relevant circumstances.

The Court of Appeal upheld the acquittal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the established test from Supreme Court jurisprudence, properly considered whether the respondent had deliberate intention to cause danger, and appropriately applied the modified objective test in concluding there was no marked departure from the standard of care of a prudent person.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision in which the trial judge refused to impose a section 161 Criminal Code prohibition order against a respondent convicted of sexual assault and sexual interference.

The respondent had been found guilty of more than twenty acts of sexual intercourse with his step-daughter over a 2.5-year period when she was between six and eight years old.

The trial judge imposed a 6.5-year sentence but declined the prohibition order, citing concerns about personal liberty.

The appellate court found that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the respondent's continued risk to children and imposed a tailored section 161 prohibition order for 15 years from release.

The appellant was convicted of possession of child pornography under s. 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code and acquitted of making child pornography available under s. 163.1(3).

The appellant appealed his conviction on Charter grounds, arguing that the search of his residence and computer violated s. 8 of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the search was unlawful but argued the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2).

The Crown also appealed the acquittal on the making available count, arguing the trial judge erred in applying the mens rea requirement.

The court dismissed the appellant's conviction appeal and allowed the Crown's appeal, ordering a new trial on the making available count.

The Crown appealed the trial judge's decision to grant a directed verdict of acquittal on charges of aggravated assault and obstruction of justice.

The respondent was accused of pushing the complainant down exterior stairs at a bar.

The trial judge found that the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence from security camera footage that did not capture the critical moment.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in applying the test for directed verdict by weighing inferences rather than determining whether any evidence existed upon which a reasonable jury could convict.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittals were set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed by the trial judge, specifically challenging a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $20,000.

The respondent was convicted of producing and selling child pornography through a corporation he controlled, generating gross sales proceeds of $946,391.25, with agreed net proceeds of $797,809.47.

The trial judge calculated the fine based only on the respondent's salary attributable to child pornography production, rather than the full proceeds of crime.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in this calculation and that the full gross sales proceeds constituted proceeds of crime under the Criminal Code.

The court substituted a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $797,809.47, with eight years from expiry of the imprisonment sentence to pay, and a default sentence of four years consecutive imprisonment.

The appellant was convicted of several gun-related charges arising from a single incident in which he allegedly discarded a loaded handgun while fleeing from police.

The Crown's case relied on police testimony that the appellant appeared to have a gun and dropped it near where he was tackled, with the gun found in close proximity and a magazine still in his hand.

The defence argued the gun belonged to another individual who had placed it at the location.

The jury convicted on all counts save one, and the trial judge imposed an effective sentence of 43 months.

The appellant appealed both conviction and sentence on three grounds: improper jury selection procedures, prejudicial comments by the trial judge regarding defence counsel's opening, and inadequate jury instructions on credibility assessment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed all grounds of appeal.