William Friedman

The applicant sought to vary an ex parte restraint order under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to allow the sale of a property that had been used as a commercial marijuana grow operation.

The applicant wanted to use the sale proceeds to pay out a first mortgage held by a credit union before remitting the balance to the Attorney General.

The Attorney General opposed the payout, arguing that the mortgagee's innocence had not been established and should be determined at a forfeiture hearing.

The court dismissed the application, finding that it would be premature to allow the payout before a full hearing under s. 20 of the CDSA.

The appellant lawyer appealed a decision of the Law Society Appeal Panel affirming his disbarment for professional misconduct.

The Hearing Panel found he knowingly participated in a dishonest scheme to obtain mortgage funds by being reckless and willfully blind to fraudulent real estate transactions.

The Divisional Court held that the standard of review was reasonableness and found no error in the panels' conclusions regarding misconduct or the penalty of disbarment.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and unlawful confinement, as well as his 30-month sentence.

He argued the trial judge erred in her credibility findings and failed to consider a conditional sentence on compassionate grounds due to his poor health.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the W.D. principles and conducted a fair assessment of the evidence.

The sentence appeal was also dismissed, as the appellant's medical needs could be adequately managed in custody.

The appellant, a property owner, appealed a summary judgment order requiring it to pay the respondent contractor $1,199,122.50 for the unpaid balance of a construction contract.

The motions judge had found that a prior settlement agreement constituted an unequivocal admission of liability, precluding the appellant from raising a defence of equitable set-off for construction deficiencies.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the settlement agreement expressly permitted the appellant to file a statement of defence without prejudice in the event of default.

As the elements of equitable set-off were present, there was a genuine issue for trial, and the summary judgment was set aside.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision finding that it did not have the right under a commercial lease to relocate the respondent tenant outside the existing shopping centre development.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the lease envisaged changes short of full demolition and creation of an entirely new development, and therefore the relocation right did not extend to compulsory relocation outside the existing complex.

The defendants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory injunction that prevented them from forcibly entering the plaintiff's unit and selling her shares prior to trial.

The dispute arose after the plaintiff installed a washer and dryer without the board's approval.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's application of the RJR-MacDonald test for injunctive relief.

The court also held that the matter was not of general public importance, but rather specific to the litigants.