Robert Allan Maxwell

The applicant sought to vary a probation order imposed following his guilty plea to breaching section 40(1)(c) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The original probation order required restitution of $100,000 to Alternative Risk Services within two years.

The applicant requested an extension of time to complete the restitution payments, citing delays in obtaining approval from the Canada Revenue Agency for business loss claims and ongoing financial difficulties.

The respondent consented to the variation.

The court granted the variation, extending the probation period and establishing a payment schedule, and additionally imposed a free-standing restitution order pursuant to section 41(1) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed a decision of the Licence Appeal Tribunal directing the Registrar to revoke his registration.

The revocation was based on the appellant's criminal conviction for sexual assault against an employee and his failure to disclose his interest in a property management business on his renewal applications for over a decade.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Tribunal's conclusions regarding the appellant's character and the necessity of revocation to protect the public were reasonable.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after stabbing the complainant, who was the husband of the accused's landlord.

The complainant confronted the accused over suspicions of an affair with his wife, leading to a physical altercation.

The accused testified that the complainant attacked him, held him by his shirt, and threatened to kill him, prompting the accused to use a knife to defend himself.

The court found the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and accepted the accused's version of events.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the force used was reasonable in the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The appellants were charged with trading in real estate as brokers without being registered.

The justice of the peace acquitted them, providing ambiguous reasons regarding whether they possessed the requisite mens rea or were acquitted based on perceived unfairness.

The summary conviction appeal judge reversed the acquittals and entered convictions.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that both the justice of the peace and the appeal judge provided inadequate reasons that foreclosed meaningful appellate review on the mens rea component of the offences.

The appellant appealed his convictions on three provincial offences: failing to have an insurance card, speeding, and failing to surrender his driver's licence.

The appellant raised 20 grounds of appeal based on idiosyncratic interpretations of constitutional law, statutory enactments, and common law, arguing that the relevant statutes did not apply to him.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the appellant's arguments were fanciful and had no air of reality.

The court confirmed the convictions and sentence, relying on binding precedent from a similar appeal involving the appellant's wife.

The appellant was convicted of breaching s. 31(2) of the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

He was fined $5,000 and ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution to the vendor of the relevant property.

The appellant appealed the restitution order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the restitution order, holding that a finding of loss is a necessary precondition to imposing a restitution order, and the evidentiary record did not establish that the vendor suffered a loss.

The applicants, real estate brokers, applied for judicial review of decisions by the Real Estate Council of Ontario (RECO) Discipline and Membership Appeals Committees, which found they acted unprofessionally in purchasing property from a client without proper disclosure or advising her to seek independent legal advice.

The Divisional Court determined the appropriate standard of review was reasonableness.

The Court found the Committees' conclusions that the applicants breached the Code of Ethics and were not entitled to costs were reasonable.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The applicant Institute sought to lift a stay of a disciplinary order against the respondent chartered accountant, which had been granted pending judicial review.

The stay was originally granted on the condition that the judicial review be expedited.

Due to egregious and inexcusable delays by the respondent's counsel, the hearing dates were lost.

The court found that the balance of convenience had shifted in favour of the applicant due to the risk to the public interest, given the respondent's convictions for offences involving dishonesty.

The motion to lift the stay was granted.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of a charge under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for failing to provide a sprinkler system in accordance with the 1990 Building Code.

The lower courts dismissed the charge, finding that the revoked 1990 Building Code could not be revived by reference in the Fire Code.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that section 12(1)(l) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act explicitly authorizes the adoption by reference of any code or standard, including the 1990 Building Code.

The matter was remitted for trial.