Law Times - Anniversary

March 24, 2014

The premier weekly newspaper for the legal profession in Ontario

Issue link:

Contents of this Issue


Page 0 of 23

Visit or call 1.800.387.5164 for a 30-day no-risk evaluation )BSECPVOEȕ1VCMJTIFE'FCSVBSZFBDIZFBS 0OTVCTDSJQUJPOȕ- 0OFUJNFQVSDIBTFȕ- .VMUJQMFDPQZEJTDPVOUTBWBJMBCMF 1SJDFTTVCKFDUUPDIBOHFXJUIPVUOPUJDF]UPBQQMJDBCMFUBYFTBOETIJQQJOHIBOEMJOH CANADIAN LAW LIST 2014 :063*/45"/5$0//&$5*0/50$"/"%"Ȏ4-&("-/&5803, ȕ BOVQUPEBUFBMQIBCFUJDBMMJTUJOH ȕ DPOUBDUJOGPSNBUJPO ȕ MFHBMBOEHPWFSONFOUDPOUBDUJOGPSNBUJPO .03&5)"/"1)0/�, CLL-Dir_LT_Feb10_14.indd 1 14-01-31 12:11 PM Speak up, defence advised Counsel urged to challenge judges who cross the line recent case in which a trial judge "usurped the role of Crown counsel" highlights the need for defence counsel to speak up when they feel a judge is crossing the line, criminal lawyers say. "More defence counsel need to be aggressively elo- quent in raising their objections. e key is to create the best trial record possible," says Toronto defence lawyer Liam O'Connor. e comments follow a new Superior Court ruling in a matter involving a woman charged with failing to provide a suitable breath sample. On appeal, Superior Court Justice Kenneth Campbell found the trial judge had assumed the role of the Crown when he took over the cross-examination of police witnesses. Campbell said Ontario Court Justice Bruno Cavion's interjec- tions were inappropriate. "Trial judges have the right to pose questions to any witness. However, in taking over the examination-in- chief of Cst. Mota from the very outset of his evidence, the trial judge was not merely posing questions to clear up some ambiguity in his testimony, or focusing Cst. Mota on some important evidentiary issue, or even put- ting some question to the offi cer that should have been asked by counsel. Instead, the trial judge was usurping the role of Crown counsel," he wrote in R. v. Pletsas. "In an adversarial proceeding, where the Crown Lawyer gets three-year sentence for fraud he Ontario Superior Court has sen- tenced a Woodstock, Ont., lawyer to three years in prison a er he plead- ed guilty to defrauding his cousin and her family out of $116,500. In 2004, lawyer Peter Snyder convinced his cousin, Linda deBelleval, her husband, and their two children to invest in his compa- ny, N. Star Development Group Ltd., accord- ing to the March 6 ruling in R. v. Snyder. For a period of time, Snyder produced fake docu- ments that showed the family "a remarkable rate of return on their investments," wrote Su- perior Court Justice Kelly Gorman. "Over time, the deBellevals asked for pay- outs from their invested funds. Each request was met with an excuse by Mr. Snyder," Gor- man noted. "By 2007, the deBellevals were frantic. Mr. Snyder wrote a number of cheques to repay them. Each was returned as 'insuffi cient funds.'" A er graduating from law school in 1984, Snyder worked at a Kitchener, Ont., fi rm before becoming a sole practitioner working in real estate planning and corporate commercial law. But since 2002, Snyder described himself simply as "a businessman," the court said. e Law Society of Upper Canada had im- posed an administrative suspension on Snyder's licence to practice law until the case came to an end. e court sentenced him a er he pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud over $5,000. Snyder's position of trust as a lawyer and a family member to the deBellevals was an ag- gravating factor in his sentencing. " e fact that Mr. Snyder was a lawyer is a signifi cant aggravating factor. . . . at fact, together with his position of trust within the family, are important considerations for this court. In my view, those serious aggra- vating factors, together with the duration of the fraudulent scheme and the signifi cant amount of money stolen, militate against a conditional sentence," according to Gorman. e court must send "a strong and clear mes- sage" in the case, according to Gorman, who noted the degree of Snyder's deception. "Even as the scheme was collapsing in on him, he had the audacity to write the deBel- levals NSF cheques, presumably to buy him- self more time," she wrote. Snyder also made "fanciful" promises to the court about repaying the money owed, the judge said, adding none of them has materialized. LT POLICE INTRUSIONS Strong statements on warrantless entries P4 SLAPP BILL Northern Ontario has big concerns P6 FOCUS ON Health/Life Sciences Law P21 We're tooting our own horn this week as we celebrate the 25th year of publishing Law Time s. Inside the paper, we've got an 11-page special feature looking back at the past 25 years. See pages 8-18 for a look back at the big cases by practice area, the eyebrow-raising stories we've covered, and a photo spread of some of the prominent members of the profession who've appeared on our pages. See Cavion, page 5 PM #40762529 Strong statements on warrantless entries TORONTO | BARRIE | HAMILTON | KITCHENER 1-866-685-3311 | cLeish Orlando_LT_Jan_20_14.indd 1 14-01-15 3:15 PM l aw TIMes $4.00 • Vol. 25, No. 11 March 24, 2014 Follow LAW TIMES on l aw TIMes BY YAMRI TADDESE Law Times A Law Times at 25 'It is more important to protect your client's interest than to worry about the potential of harming your relationship with the judge,' says David Cohn. Photo: Laura Pedersen BY YAMRI TADDESE Law Times T

Articles in this issue

Links on this page

Archives of this issue

view archives of Law Times - Anniversary - March 24, 2014