William John McCulligh

A lawyer pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000, having misappropriated over $3.2 million from multiple clients and estates through a profound breach of trust.

The court sentenced him to 58 months imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence due to the gravity, duration, and significant impact of the fraud, and the exploitation of his professional position.

Restitution orders were issued in favour of the Law Society of Ontario and one estate, while a claim for legal fees by another victim was declined.

The Crown appealed a decision of the Court of Appeal for Ontario that ordered a new trial after the trial judge made a factual error regarding the year the accused underwent sexual offender treatment.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's misapprehension of evidence had an impact on the conviction and resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The Supreme Court of Canada restored the conviction, holding that the trial judge's error regarding the specific year of the sex offender treatment did not have any material impact on the trial judge's overall assessment of the similar fact evidence or the accused's credibility when the trial judge's reasons were considered as a whole, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appellant appealed convictions for sexual interference and sexual assault of his daughter, arguing that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning his sex offender treatment.

The majority of the Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's factual error regarding the date of the appellant's treatment was material, impacting the assessment of his propensity to re-offend and the weight given to similar fact evidence.

This misapprehension played an essential part in the reasoning leading to the conviction.

The appeal was allowed, and a new trial was ordered.

A dissenting judge argued the error was not material to the overall reasoning.

The offender was convicted after jury trial of importing 3.532 kilograms of cocaine into Canada, contrary to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The court considered the applicable sentencing range for multi‑kilogram cocaine importation, noting appellate authorities establishing a typical range of six to eight years for couriers importing large quantities for personal gain.

Aggravating factors included the substantial quantity of cocaine, motivation for financial gain, limited remorse, and a prior drug-related conviction abroad.

Mitigating factors included a difficult upbringing and the limited role of the offender as a courier.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence, the court imposed an eight-year sentence with enhanced credit for pre‑trial custody.

In a family law proceeding following a motion addressing spousal support, the respondent wife sought costs from the commencement of the proceeding after obtaining a consent order for ongoing support.

The court held that under Rule 24(10) of the Family Law Rules, costs must generally be sought and determined promptly after each step in the proceeding.

Relying on appellate authority, the court found that costs relating to earlier steps where no costs were requested or reserved could not later be claimed.

The wife was therefore limited to seeking costs for the motion heard on December 9, 2011.

Given her success on the support issue and an unaccepted offer to settle that was substantially matched by the result, the court awarded full indemnity costs for the motion.