Tracy A. Pratt

The appellants, a First Nation and six individuals, appealed their six-month sentences for contempt of a court order.

The respondent did not oppose the appeal, conceding that the appellants had spent enough time in jail and that the underlying dispute required negotiation.

The Court of Appeal accepted the respondent's position and allowed the appeal, ordering the release of the appellants.

Staff of the Ontario Securities Commission alleged that the respondent, a lawyer and business consultant, engaged in unregistered trading and advising, illegal distributions, and made misleading representations regarding securities of Saxton Investments Ltd. and Sussex International Ltd. The respondent had attended meetings and provided updates on Cuban business operations to investors and salespeople.

The Commission found that the respondent's conduct was informational rather than promotional, and did not amount to acts in furtherance of a trade or advising.

The Commission also found insufficient evidence that the respondent knew the operations were running at a loss when he provided updates, or that he engaged in illegal distributions.

All allegations were dismissed.

The accused, charged with arson, retained out-of-town counsel under a legal aid certificate.

Legal Aid Ontario refused to authorize travel expenses or junior counsel.

Shortly before trial, the accused successfully applied for a 'Fisher' order requiring Legal Aid or the Crown to pay these expenses to ensure a fair trial.

The Crown and Legal Aid appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and quashed the order, holding that the state has no positive obligation to fund counsel of choice except in rare circumstances where a fair trial is otherwise impossible.

The court found no evidence that local competent counsel were unavailable or that the accused's right to a fair trial was imperilled.