S. Hassan

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondents, a church and its elders, for breaching a court order that restrained them from holding gatherings of more than 10 persons in contravention of COVID-19 regulations.

The respondents did not oppose the motion.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the respondents had notice of it, and they intentionally breached it by holding a service with approximately 225 people.

All respondents were found in contempt, and the matter was adjourned for sentencing.

The offender was convicted of ten counts of fraud and one count of defrauding the public, involving the sale of fictitious shares in gold mining companies to unsophisticated investors.

The total fraud exceeded $1.1 million.

The court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment, finding that the principles of denunciation and deterrence required a significant penitentiary term given the magnitude, duration, and devastating impact of the fraud on vulnerable victims.

The court also ordered full restitution of $1,100,799 and imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture in the same amount.

Following his conviction for multiple counts of fraud, the accused applied to reopen his trial prior to sentencing to introduce new evidence.

The proposed evidence was his passport, which contained a visa stamp he claimed supported his alibi that he was in St. Kitts when some of the fraudulent transactions occurred.

The court applied the Palmer test for the admission of fresh evidence and dismissed the application.

The court found that the evidence failed to meet the due diligence requirement and, more importantly, lacked sufficient importance, as the visa stamp did not prove the accused's physical presence in St. Kitts at the relevant times and would not have affected the trial's outcome or the court's adverse credibility findings against him.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion before a case conference to set aside a separation agreement on an interim basis.

The agreement provided for equal parenting time and no child support.

The applicant alleged she signed under duress and that the agreement was unconscionable.

The respondent father argued the agreement was fair and maximized parenting time.

The court found urgency but declined to set aside the agreement on an interim basis, noting that the conflicting affidavit evidence could not be resolved without a trial and that the current equal parenting schedule provided stability and was in the children's best interests.