Quoc Tran was convicted of possession of proceeds of crime over $5,000 and fraud over $5,000, stemming from a scheme where he received $291,459.12 through fraudulent credit card product returns orchestrated by a friend.

The court found his claim of unawareness fabricated.

In sentencing, the court considered aggravating factors, including the large sum and protracted nature of the fraud, and mitigating factors, such as Tran's lack of criminal record, pro-social life, and family responsibilities.

The court imposed a 2-year less a day conditional sentence, 2 years' probation, and a stand-alone restitution order of $291,459.12, finding it consistent with sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation without requiring incarceration.

The appellants, Subway, appealed the dismissal of their $210 million defamation action against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) under an anti-Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation (SLAPP) motion (s. 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act).

The action arose from a CBC Marketplace report alleging Subway's chicken products contained only 50% chicken DNA.

The Court of Appeal found that the motion judge erred in applying a higher standard for the "no valid defence" test and in weighing the public interest.

The Court determined that Subway had established grounds to believe CBC had no valid defence of responsible communication and that the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the expression, given the significant reputational and financial harm alleged and the lack of urgency in disseminating unverified information.

The appeal was allowed, and the defamation action against CBC was permitted to continue.

The Plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the Defendant Fawad Khan for breaching court orders that restricted the Khan Defendants from bringing motions without leave.

They also sought ancillary orders regarding alternative service for future contempt motions, restraining further motions until outstanding costs were paid, and requiring leave applications to be in writing.

The court found Fawad Khan in contempt for one instance of failing to seek leave before bringing a motion to compel undertakings.

Other contempt allegations, particularly those related to appeals, were dismissed as not falling within the scope of the restrictive orders.

The court granted the request for alternative service for future contempt motions and dispensed with the approval of court orders by the Khan Defendants.

However, it dismissed the request to restrain motions until costs were paid, noting that contempt cannot be used to enforce monetary orders, and affirmed that leave applications should proceed in writing as per the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Costs were awarded to the Plaintiffs, but reduced due to their limited success on the multiple contempt allegations.