Sharon Greene

The self-represented accused, facing fraud charges for allegedly holding himself out as a lawyer and misappropriating funds, brought an application for further first-party disclosure from the Crown and third-party records from his former employers, the police, and the Law Society of Upper Canada.

The court reviewed the requests under the Stinchcombe and O'Connor frameworks.

The court ordered the production of certain invoices and payments to establish the business relationship between the accused and the law firms, and ordered the Crown to provide witness lists and criminal records.

Requests for client files were denied due to solicitor-client privilege, and the request for Law Society records was dismissed as a fishing expedition.

The applicant, a self-represented lawyer facing discipline proceedings, brought an application under Rule 14 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an interpretation of the investigative powers under s. 49.3 of the Law Society Act.

The respondent Law Society brought a motion to quash the application, arguing it was a disguised and premature application for judicial review of an ongoing administrative process.

The court agreed with the respondent, finding that the material facts were in dispute and that the applicant must first exhaust his remedies before the Law Society Tribunal.

The application was dismissed as premature and the motion to quash was granted.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that a five-year-old child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Child and Family Services Act and a Crown wardship disposition to free the child for adoption.

The child's mother opposed the motion but was unprepared at the hearing and had recently changed counsel.

The court denied the mother's adjournment request and proceeded with the motion.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on any of the society's claims or the mother's counterclaim for return of the child to her custody.

The child's need for protection was grounded in the mother's chronic cocaine addiction and inability to maintain long-term sobriety despite multiple treatment attempts over more than two years.

The court found that less intrusive options, including return to the mother or society wardship, were not appropriate given the child's need for stable, permanent parenting and the mother's demonstrated pattern of relapse.

The court granted the society's motion and made the child a Crown ward for the purpose of adoption.