Waikwa Wanyoike

The Crown appealed a conditional discharge with three years' probation imposed on the respondent following a guilty plea for fraud over $5,000 against his employer.

The Crown argued that a conditional discharge is rarely appropriate for such an offence and sought a six-month conditional sentence.

The majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle, as the trial judge properly recognized the respondent's exceptional circumstances, including his status as a first offender, strong community service record, and career aspirations.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and imposed a conditional sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of the breach of trust.

The appellant, a lawyer, sued the police and Crown attorneys for malicious prosecution, Charter breaches, and other torts following his acquittal on sexual assault charges.

The motion judge struck most of his fresh amended statement of claim under Rules 21 and 25.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by effectively conducting a summary judgment motion rather than accepting the pleaded facts as true, and by applying too narrow a test for malice at the pleadings stage.

The action was permitted to proceed against all defendants except the Police Services Board (save for vicarious liability).