Richard J. LeDressay

Herbert Adams was convicted after trial of four counts of fraud over $5,000 contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The frauds involved defrauding shareholders of Majestic Supply Company of $5.3 million and three named individuals of $381,000 combined.

Adams personally received $1,610,444 in proceeds of crime.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of five and one-half years on the primary count with concurrent two-year sentences on the remaining counts, along with a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $1,610,444, a restitution order of $5.3 million, a no-contact order, and a DNA order.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to properly wear a seatbelt contrary to section 106(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial justice found the offence to be one of absolute liability and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the court considered two issues: whether a reasonable apprehension of bias arose from the trial judge's premature pronouncement of guilt, and whether section 106(2) creates a strict liability or absolute liability offence.

The court dismissed the bias argument but found that section 106(2) is a strict liability offence, not absolute liability.

The Crown consented to a stay of proceedings rather than proceed with a new trial.

An elector appealed a decision by the Halton District School Board Compliance Audit Committee declining to order a compliance audit of a school trustee candidate's election campaign finances.

The elector alleged that the candidate had made false, misleading, and untrue statements in her Form 4 Financial Statement, specifically regarding unreported contributions and underreported campaign expenses.

The court conducted a de novo hearing and applied the "reasonable grounds" test, requiring an objective belief based on compelling and credible information raising reasonable probability of a breach.

The court found that the elector's allegations were based on conjecture, speculation, and circumstantial evidence insufficient to meet the threshold.

The appeal was dismissed and no compliance audit was ordered.

An applicant appealed a decision by the Halton District School Board Compliance Audit Committee that rejected her application for a compliance audit of a school trustee candidate's election campaign finances.

The applicant alleged the candidate had filed false and misleading financial statements.

The court found that the Compliance Audit Committee failed to establish adequate administrative procedures as mandated by statute, failed to provide fair notice to the applicant regarding the hearing process, and failed to create a transparent and complete record of its proceedings.

The court determined that procedural fairness had been compromised and ordered a de novo hearing on appeal, allowing the applicant to present additional evidence that was not before the original committee.