Law Times

OPPOSING COUNSEL LAWPRO COVERAGE New rules for paralegal partnerships Is it better to know who you're facing? P7 l aw TIMes Follow LAW TIMES on www.twitter.com/lawtimes $4.00 • Vol. 24, No. 10 P5 FOCUS ON Restructuring & Insolvency CO V E R I N G O N TA R I O ' S L E G A L S C E N E • W W W. L AW T I M E S N E W S . CO M ntitled-4 1 P8 March 18, 2013 12-03-20 10:44 A Judge seeks end to 'longest running legal drama' Vexatious litigant declared in estates dispute dating to 1971 BY YAMRI TADDESE I Law Times n a case he called "Ontario's longest running legal drama," a Superior Court judge has declared a plaintiff who launched dozens of lawsuits in an estate dispute a vexatious litigant. William Assaf has been fighting for a bigger share of his father's estate since Edward Assaf died in 1971. According to a recent ruling, his battles were "motivated by a belief that a terrible injustice had been done by his father to his mother, who he felt had been abused in life and cruelly treated in the will." There have been more than 30 lawsuits and over 100 different court orders in the matter, according to the March 6 ruling by Justice Edward Morgan. Assaf has brought motions against the administrator of his father's will, the current owners of the elder Assaf 's estate, and a lawyer involved in the case. Courts in several instances have ruled his motions were meritless. In the absence of action to control future claims, Assaf "will remain a Pirandellian character in search of an author, re-enacting past struggles in a dramatic loop he cannot seem to escape," wrote Morgan in Burton v. Assaf. Judges who presided over previous motions in the same matter described the Assaf litigants using similar language. Former Superior Court justice David Cromarty said the litigants were "figures in a classical tragedy, bent upon destroying that which surrounds them, especially their monetary inheritance." That was back in 1980 in Assaf v. Koury that dealt with an See Lawyer, page 4 The property at 140 Dunvegan Rd. in Toronto is at the heart of the long-running legal battle over the estate of Edward Assaf. Photo: Laura Pedersen Defence lawyers applaud appeal ruling on enhanced credit Law Times T 'The fact is, if you were given credit on a onefor-one basis, you weren't treated the same way as somebody who wasn't held in custody,' says Corbin Cawkell. he Ontario Court of Appeal ruled last week that the loss of remission and ineligibility for parole are sufficient reasons to grant enhanced sentencing credit to convicts. The Crown attorney in R. v. Summers appealed a lower court's decision to grant convicted murderer Sean Summers enhanced credit of 1-1/2 days for each day spent in remand. In rejecting the appeal, the court aligned itself with the Manitoba and Nova Scotia appeal courts' interpretation of the federal government's Truth in Sen- tencing Act. The bill, part of the government's tough-on-crime agenda, aimed to stop judges from granting enhanced credit of two days for every day spent in remand, a common practice until a few years ago. Instead, the 2009 legislation made a 1:1 ratio the general rule with a provision that a judge could choose to give 1.5:1 credit in certain circumstances. A lack of qualifying language as to what types of circumstances would warrant enhanced credit is at the heart of the appeal court's decision last week. "The legislator's failure to employ modifying language in connection with the word 'circumstances' in s. 719(3.1), particularly when restrictive language could readily have been inserted, is significant," wrote Justice Eleanore Cronk on behalf of the threejudge panel. "It gives rise to the inference that a sentencing judge enjoys a wide discretion under the provision to consider all those circumstances that may, in a particular case, warrant enhanced credit, subject always to Parliament's clear direction that such credit should not exceed that calculated at the maximum rate of 1.5:1." The fact that the legislation mentions two specific circumstances where enhanced credit isn't an option — in cases where the court denies bail due to a PM #40762529 BY YAMRI TADDESE See Crown, page 4 Recruiting? Post your position on Great rates. Great reach. Great results. Contact Sandy Shutt at sandra.shutt@thomsonreuters.com for details. JobsInLaw 1-8 pg 5X.indd 1 2/15/11 4:12:27 PM

• Cover