Langston v. Landen, 2011 ONCA 242

Case Summary

The appellants appealed the sentence imposed for civil contempt. They argued the motion judge erred by imposing a significantly longer sentence than suggested by counsel without advising them beforehand. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the motion judge did not owe deference to the trustee's submissions on sentence and that the sentence was fit to vindicate the due administration of justice in the context of the contempts.

Court of Appeal for Ontario

Citation: Langston v. Landen, 2011 ONCA 242

Date: 20110328

Docket: C53093

Before: Doherty, LaForme and Epstein JJ.A.

Between

Charles Langston, Ernie Sheriff, Jakmin Investments Ltd., Tzvi Mond, Eva Carr, Soad Charitable Foundation, Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services, She’Arim, Yesodei Cholim, Zareinu, Queensway General Hospital, Toronto General Hospital, the Toronto Humane Society, Alzheimer Society of Canada, Canadian Friends of Birkat Moshe, Capuchin Outreach for the Poor, Parkdale, the Parkinson Foundation of Canada, the Scott Mission, the Estate of Lorraine Penna, the Estate of Mikey Drutz, the Estate of Murray Osheroff, the Estate Trustee During Litigation for the Estate of Paul Penna

Plaintiff (Respondent)

and

Barry Landen, Pauline Landen and 1435031 Ontario Limited

Defendant (Appellant)

Counsel:

Phil Downes and Graeme A. Hamilton, for appellant

Matthew P. Sammon and Paul-Erik Veel, for the respondent

Heard: March 25, 2011

On appeal from the sentence imposed by Justice Greer of the Superior Court of Justice on November 24, 2010.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] We would not interfere with the sentence. The context in which the contempts occurred was a very important consideration and was properly emphasized by the motion judge in determining the sentence needed to adequately vindicate the due administration of justice.

[2] The motion judge did not owe deference to the trustee’s submissions on sentence. She had to give them careful consideration and there is no reason to think she did not. While it would have been preferable had the motion judge advised counsel that she was considering a significantly longer sentence than that suggested by either counsel, we would not characterize the failure to do so as an error in principle. In any event, the ultimate question is the fitness of the sentence imposed and we are satisfied that this sentence was fit in the circumstances.

[3] The appeal is dismissed. Costs to the estate trustee (respondent) in the amount of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Langston v. Landen, 2011 ONCA 242

Case Summary

Court of Appeal for Ontario

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

Judges

Counsel

Parties

Areas of Law

Fact Patterns

Financial Outcomes

Issues