Purchase This Domain

Civil procedure — Appeals — Extension of time — Moving parties sought an extension of time to perfect appeals from orders compelling the sale of a condominium and issuing a non-harassment order — Should the moving parties be granted an extension of time? — Governing test for extensions of time includes justice of the case, intention to appeal, length of delay, explanation for delay, merits of appeal, and prejudice to respondentsEvidence — Merits of appeal — Moving parties argued that the sale of a condominium was a disproportionate remedy and that costs were improperly awarded — Did the moving parties demonstrate sufficient merit in their appeals to justify an extension of time? — Appeals found to lack arguable merit under the test for denying extensions based on absence of meritCivil procedure — Delay — Explanation for delay — Moving parties failed to perfect appeals due to deficiencies in materials and failure to submit required orders — Did the moving parties’ delay and explanation for the delay warrant dismissal of their motion? — Delay and unsatisfactory explanation contributed to dismissal when combined with lack of merit and prejudiceCivil procedure — Prejudice — Responding parties sought resolution and peace from harassment — Did the ongoing prejudice to the responding parties justify dismissal of the motion for an extension of time? — Prejudice to responding parties in responding to meritless appeals supported dismissal of the motion

Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Conditional sentence orders — Respondent sentenced to a conditional sentence for trafficking offences despite a global sentence exceeding two years — Did the sentencing judge err in imposing a conditional sentence order contrary to R. v. Fice? — Conditional sentence orders unavailable for global sentences exceeding two years — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 742.1Statutory interpretation — Sentencing — Consecutive sentences — Respondent convicted of participation in a criminal organization — Sentencing judge failed to impose a consecutive sentence for the offence — Did the sentencing judge err in failing to apply section 467.14 of the Criminal Code? — Section 467.14 mandates consecutive sentences for criminal organization offencesCriminal procedure — Restitution orders — Validity — Restitution order imposed to reimburse investigative police agency — Did the sentencing judge err in imposing a restitution order inconsistent with the purpose of restitution under the Criminal Code? — Restitution orders must promote accountability to victims and redress specific harm — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 738Criminal procedure — Appeals — Joint position on remedy — Respondent made significant progress toward rehabilitation and served substantial time under a conditional sentence — Should the Court of Appeal accept the joint position of the parties on the appropriate remedy? — Joint position accepted due to rehabilitation progress, time served, and sentencing principles

Criminal procedure — Interveners in criminal applications — Judicial independence — Administration of justice — Applications under ss. 682 and 683 of the Criminal Code — Leave to intervene granted to the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Justice and the Ontario Superior Court Judges’ Association — Did the proposed interveners establish that their participation would provide a useful contribution? — Test for granting leave to intervene in criminal mattersCivil procedure — Interveners — Scope of participation — Terms of intervention — Applications under ss. 682 and 683 of the Criminal Code — Interveners permitted to file factums, rely on materials, and make oral submissions — What is the appropriate scope of participation for interveners in criminal applications? — Rule 30 of the Criminal Appeal Rules governs the extent of intervener participationEvidence — Sealing orders — Fresh evidence applications — Criminal procedure — Crown’s application for a sealing order on future materials filed in relation to ss. 682 and 683 applications — Whether r. 27(10) of the Criminal Appeal Rules mandates a sealing order — Application dismissed as r. 27(10) does not apply to the materials in question