top of page

Dreamcatcher Law A.I.

Formal Complaint and Request for Certificate Review: Roster Lawyer Jamie Kopman - Dreamcatcher Law A.I.

  • Writer: Stephen Morris
    Stephen Morris
  • May 21
  • 46 min read

Email Draft to Legal Aid Ontario


Subject: Formal Complaint and Request for Certificate Review: Roster Lawyer Jamie Kopman (Certificate # ???)

To the Legal Aid Ontario Complaints Department,

I am writing to lodge a formal complaint and request an immediate review regarding the professional conduct and quality of service provided by my Legal Aid roster counsel,


Jamie Kopman (KMS Legal; Email: jkopman@kmslegal.ca; Phone: 416-456-3614).

Mr. Kopman has consistently demonstrated a severe deficiency in the standard of care required to defend my file, culminating in a critical breakdown of the administration of justice and a direct threat to my personal liberty.

Specifically, I am requesting an investigation into the following events:

  1. Misleading Instructions and Failure to Attend Court: Mr. Kopman explicitly instructed me not to attend my last two scheduled court dates, advising me that the Crown was concerned the proceedings might become overly contentious. I relied on his instructions in good faith. However, Mr. Kopman subsequently failed to appear in court himself on both dates and failed to send an agent on his behalf.

  2. Issuance of a Bench Warrant: Because neither counsel nor client appeared, the court issued a bench warrant for my arrest.

  3. Six-Week Delay and Deceit Regarding Record Endorsements: Mr. Kopman went completely silent for six weeks following this failure, leaving me exposed to arrest and unrepresented. Upon finally making contact today, Mr. Kopman verbally asserted that the bench warrant was entirely due to an administrative scheduling error by the Crown. However, he has failed or refused to produce any documentary evidence, written confirmation from the Crown, or court Information endorsements to validate this claim.

As a Legal Aid client, I am entirely reliant on the competence and integrity of my appointed counsel. Mr. Kopman’s actions—misleading a client regarding attendance, failing to appear, neglecting a file while a bench warrant remains active, and potentially deflecting responsibility through unverified claims of Crown error—represent a profound breach of fiduciary duty and professional misconduct. These actions echo the exact behaviors penalized by the Law Society Tribunal in LSUC v. Ghobrial, 2015 ONLSTH 225, and LSUC v. Jeffrey Cathcart Barnabe, 2008 ONLSHP 94.

Given the active arrest warrant and the complete breakdown of the solicitor-client relationship, I urgently request:

  • A formal review of Mr. Kopman’s handling of this Legal Aid certificate.

  • Intervention or guidance from LAO on how to secure independent duty counsel to safely address and vacate the bench warrant without facing immediate detention due to my lawyer's negligence.

I am prepared to fill out any secondary PDF ethics forms required by your department to ensure this matter is thoroughly investigated. Thank you for your prompt intervention in a matter that directly impacts my fundamental freedom.

Sincerely,

Stephen J. Morris

647 901 6799

Important Filing Tips

  • LAO Complaint Process: LAO typically acknowledges complaints and assigns a file number. Because you have an active bench warrant, if you call their general helpline at 1-800-668-8258 and state that you have an active warrant caused by roster counsel abandonment, they can sometimes expedite your connection to senior provincial staff or a duty counsel manager at your specific courthouse.


Emailed 1:00 pm today:

To Jamie Kopman,

Formal Correspondence Draft

CONFIDENTIAL / FORMER COUNSEL RECORD ONLY

DELIVERED VIA EMAIL WITH READ RECEIPT

[Date]

[Lawyer's Name]

[Lawyer's Law Firm / Office Address]

[City, Province, Postal Code]

RE: In the Matter of [Your Full Name] — Demand for Record Disclosure and Scheduling Verification

Dear Mr./Ms. [Lawyer's Last Name],

I am writing further to our conversation today regarding the status of my ongoing matter and the events surrounding my scheduled court appearances.

As you are aware, I was explicitly instructed by your office not to attend the last two scheduled court dates, based on a stated concern regarding potential escalating tensions with the Crown. I relied upon that professional advice in good faith.

It has now come to my attention that a bench warrant was issued for my arrest due to non-attendance at those proceedings. Today, you informed me that this failure to appear was entirely the result of an administrative scheduling error on the part of the Crown, who you state recorded an incorrect date.

While I appreciate your verbal explanation, the issuance of an arrest warrant constitutes a severe restriction on my personal liberty and introduces profound legal jeopardy into my file. To verify the record, correct the court's file, and determine the appropriate steps forward, I require immediate physical and documentary evidence of this Crown error.

Pursuant to your professional obligations of candor and file management, please provide the following documentation to my attention within five (3) business days (by no later than 5:00 PM on June 4, 2026:

  1. Written Confirmation from the Crown: Any email, correspondence, or written acknowledgment from the Crown Attorney's office admitting to or confirming their clerical or scheduling error for the dates in question.

  2. Certified Court Information / Endorsement Pages: A copy of the physical Information or the court's digital record (ICON/SCO notations) showing the specific endorsements made by the presiding Justice of the Peace or Judge on the days you missed.

  3. Digital Audio Recording (DARS) Request/Transcripts: Proof of order or copies of the audio/transcripts for the missed appearance dates, verifying exactly what was stated on the record when my name was paged and the warrant was issued.

As a matter of professional courtesy, I must highlight that the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Law Society Tribunal view a solicitor’s failure to attend court, combined with misleading instructions to a client that result in an arrest warrant, as an actionable breach of fiduciary duty and professional misconduct. Precedents such as Canavan v. Feldman, 2004 CanLII 4787 (ON SC), Law Society of Upper Canada v. Ghobrial, 2015 ONLSTH 225, and Law Society of Upper Canada v. Jeffrey Cathcart Barnabe, 2008 ONLSHP 94, establish strict civil and regulatory liability for high-handed concealment of non-attendance.

If the Crown is indeed at fault, it is imperative that we receive this documentation immediately to vacate the warrant and safeguard my profile. If your office cannot produce written or transcript evidence confirming a Crown error within the requested timeframe, I will have no alternative but to assume the scheduling lapse was internal, take steps to protect myself through independent duty counsel, and formalize this matter through the appropriate regulatory bodies.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent request. I look forward to your timely disclosure.

Sincerely,

*************************************************************************

Dreamcatcher Law A.I. — Professional Brief Assistance

Dreamcatcher Law A.I. is a scalable legal research and drafting service designed to support both counsel and self-represented litigants in complex or resource-constrained matters. Where the modern legal system has become dilatory, cost-prohibitive, or procedurally labyrinthine, Dreamcatcher Law A.I. aims to restore clarity, access, and principled structure to legal work. We guarantee scientifically "unbiased" and speedy A.I.-driven results and legal substance for litigators and parties on the go, for less.

Core Services Include:

• Research briefs and memoranda (Charter, civil, and administrative).• Case law synthesis and authorities tables.• Drafting support for motions, pleadings, and appellate materials.• Targeted assistance for self-represented litigants, who are too often left to navigate an intractable system without guidance.• File support structured on a quantum meruit basis, ensuring fairness in both scope and remuneration.

The model is intentionally technologically neutral yet human-verified — combining modern AI tools with careful legal reasoning and editorial oversight. In short, it is designed to be useful, not ornamental. As ever, the governing principle remains simple: Breve judiciale non cadit pro defectu formae — substance must prevail over form. Or, more plainly put: good law should be accessible, intelligible, and capable of being used.

If you — or anyone within your circle — encounter files where additional research capacity, drafting support, or strategic clarity would be of assistance, I would be glad to speak further.

The site is now live: Dreamcatcher Law A.I.

I welcome your thoughts on the A.I. industry revolution taking place before our eyes. We aim to stay ahead of the curve!

With best regards,

Stephen James Morris, BA, MA, LLB

Dreamcatcher Law A.I.Email: drstevennyx@gmail.comPhone: 647-901-6799

Activities: TikTokPortfolio: InstagramPlaylists: YouTube PlaylistsWeb Shrapnel: MastodonSocial Criticism: X / Twitter



AI Sources and Discussion


CanLII AI Inquiry Draft

Subject: Research Request: Solicitor Negligence and Misrepresentation regarding Court Attendances.

Inquiry: "Provide case law and precedents regarding solicitor negligence and breach of fiduciary duty in the context of criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings. Specifically, I am seeking cases where:

  1. A lawyer failed to appear on scheduled court dates (non-attendance) without a valid excuse, resulting in a bench warrant being issued against the client.

  2. A lawyer provided instructions to a client not to attend court, which subsequently led to a failure to appear.

  3. A lawyer is alleged to have made fraudulent misrepresentations or provided false information to a client regarding the Crown’s scheduling errors to conceal their own professional lapses.

  4. The court addressed the impact of such malfeasance on the solicitor-client relationship and any resulting remedies or stays of proceedings."

Key Terms to Watch For

When you review the results, keep an eye out for these specific legal principles:

  • Standard of Care: The legal benchmark for what a "reasonably competent" lawyer should have done in your situation.

  • Fiduciary Duty: The high level of trust a lawyer owes a client; lying about a court date is a significant breach of this duty.

  • Law Society of Ontario (LSO) Rules of Professional Conduct: Specifically Rule 7.2-1 (Courtesy and Good Faith) and Rule 5.1 (The Lawyer as Advocate), which mandate honesty toward the client and the court.

Next Steps for Your File

  • Request the Digital Audio Recording (DARS): You can request the transcript or audio from the dates the lawyer missed. This will confirm exactly what was said on the record and whether the Crown actually made a scheduling error.

  • Law Society Complaint: In addition to court precedents, you may wish to look into the Law Society of Ontario’s complaint process, as "misleading a client" is a serious regulatory offense.

  • Duty Counsel: If you are currently unrepresented due to this breakdown in trust, speak with Duty Counsel at the courthouse; they can often help you "vacate" or address the bench warrant by explaining the lawyer's failure to appear.


Refined CanLII AI Research Inquiry

Subject: Research Request: Damages for Wrongful Incarceration due to Solicitor Malfeasance and Deceit.

Inquiry: "I am seeking precedents and quantum of damages related to solicitor negligence and breach of fiduciary duty involving the following specific factors:

  1. Wrongful Incarceration: Precedents similar to Canavan v. Feldman, 2004 CanLII 4787 (ON SC), where a lawyer’s failure to attend court and subsequent misleading of the client resulted in a bench warrant and the client’s arrest.

  2. Dishonesty regarding Court Scheduling: Cases where a lawyer falsely attributed a failure to appear to 'Crown error' or 'wrong dates' to conceal their own negligence, and the court's view on such fraudulent misrepresentation.

  3. Professional Discipline for 'Ungovernability': Cases like Law Society of Upper Canada v. Antonios Karalis, 2009 ONLSHP 87, specifically focusing on the threshold where a lawyer’s pattern of non-attendance and deceit regarding bench warrants warrants immediate suspension or revocation.

  4. Remedies: I am looking for cases that award punitive and aggravated damages (specifically referencing the $100,000+ thresholds in Canavan) when a lawyer's deceit leads to the deprivation of a client's liberty."

How to Use the Cases You Found

You have already found the "ammunition" for your file. Here is how to categorize them for your argument:

1. The "Win" for Damages: Canavan v. Feldman (Result #10)

This is your strongest case. It proves that:

  • The lawyer is liable: The court found the lawyer's misconduct was the sole cause of the harm.

  • Deceit is a "high-handed" act: The lawyer told the client the date was cancelled (similar to your lawyer saying the Crown had the wrong date).

  • High Payouts: The court awarded $300,000+ in total damages because misleading a client into getting arrested is considered "egregious professional misconduct."

2. The "Win" for Professional Misconduct: LSUC v. Karalis (Result #2)

This case confirms that failing to appear when a client has signed a designation (allowing the lawyer to appear in their place) is a "significant risk to the public." If your lawyer told you not to come and then didn't show up himself, he violated the core of the designation of counsel rules.

3. The "Win" for Fraudulent Excuse: Kashibhai Group Inc. (Result #6)

This result highlights that "deflecting responsibility" for criminal conduct or "attributing false statements to the lawyers" is a serious integrity issue. You can use this logic in reverse: your lawyer is attempting to deflect his failure onto the Crown.

A Strategic Note on the "Crown Error" Claim

In Ontario, every court appearance is recorded in the Information (the official court charging document).

  • If the Crown truly "wrote down the wrong date," it would be visible on the court's computer system (ICON/SCO) or the back of the physical Information.

  • Action: Ask for a copy of the "Information" from the court clerk. If the date you were told matches the date the court expected, but your lawyer says otherwise, you have physical proof of his lie.

Note on Case #13 (Farahmand Borojeni): This is a very recent 2025 case. It confirms that the Law Society still views "not assisting a client in respect of a bench warrant" as a primary ground for an interlocutory suspension.

  1. 1.

    Canavan v. Feldman, 2004 CanLII 4787 (ON SC)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2004-07-23  |  27 pages  |  cited by 6 documents

    AI-generated

    The Court found a lawyer's misconduct, including misleading his client and the court, caused wrongful imprisonment. The client was awarded $200,000 in general damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, and $25,000 under the Family Law Act for the spouse's loss of companionship.

    Damages Professions and occupations

    Professional responsibility — Legal counsel misconduct — Breach of fiduciary duty — Lawyer failed to act in client’s best interests, misled client and court, and admitted guilt without client’s consent — Did the lawyer’s actions breach professional obligations, causing harm to the client? — Legal counsel’s duty of honesty and integrity toward clients and the court

    Torts — Wrongful incarceration — General and aggravated damages — Plaintiff wrongfully imprisoned for 35 days due to lawyer’s misconduct — Did the plaintiff suffer compensable harm, including humiliation, distress, and loss of reputation? — Aggravating factors justify enhanced damages — $200,000 awarded for general and aggravated damages

    Torts — Punitive damages — Lawyer’s high-handed and oppressive conduct — Misleading client and court, causing wrongful incarceration — Should punitive damages be awarded to punish and deter such misconduct? — $100,000 awarded for punitive damages to denounce and deter egregious professional misconduct

    Family — Family Law Act claim — Loss of care, guidance, and companionship — Plaintiff’s spouse suffered emotional distress and loss of companionship during wrongful incarceration — Is the spouse entitled to damages under the Family Law Act? — $25,000 awarded for loss of care, guidance, and companionship

    Obligations — Fiduciary duty — Lawyer-client relationship — Lawyer’s failure to fulfill obligations to client, including honesty, competence, and loyalty — Did the lawyer’s breach of fiduciary duty result in harm to the client? — Lawyer’s misconduct found to be the sole cause of the plaintiff’s harm

    Show more

    […]   [10] Mr. Canavan’s special damages in the amount of $66,231.14 are admitted. There remains to be determined the amount of general damages, and punitive damages if any, to be paid by Mr. Feldman and the quantum to be awarded to Mrs. Canavan pursuant to her Family Law Act claim against Mr. Feldman.   […]  "I earlier referred to proportionality as the key to the permissible quantum of punitive damages. Retribution, denunciation and deterrence are the recognized justification for punitive damages, and the means must be rationally proportionate to the end sought to be achieved.   […]  

  2. 2.

    Law Society of Upper Canada v. Ghobrial, 2015 ONLSTH 225 (CanLII)

    Law Society Tribunal

    2015-12-23  |  37 pages

    retainer — client — contempt motion — appearance — funds

    […]   Lawyer: failing to complete any work on her behalf, misleading her so that she did not appear in court, and himself not appearing in court to represent her – The Lawyer mishandled client funds in nine matters and misappropriated client funds in two matters – The Lawyer’s actions represented a deliberate course of dishonest   […]   [71] On October 28, 2013, the Lawyer failed to attend court. [72] On November 25, 2013, the Lawyer again failed to attend court.   […]

  3. 3.

    Nelson Barbados Group Inc v Richard Cox et al, 2013 ONSC 8025 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2013-05-03  |  46 pages  |  cited by 2 documents

    AI-generated

    The Court dismissed an application to set aside a contempt order due to ongoing non-compliance with court directives. The applicant failed to purge contempt, provided irrelevant and inflammatory submissions, and demonstrated a pattern of obstructing judicial proceedings and defaming opposing counsel. A custodial sentence and costs were imposed.

    Practice and procedure

    Civil procedure — Contempt of court — Purging contempt — Compliance with court orders — Conviction for contempt based on failure to attend examinations and comply with orders of November 2 and December 2, 2009 — Legal consequences of non-compliance — Does the applicant’s participation in ongoing litigation satisfy obligations to purge contempt? — Court upheld prior contempt findings based on non-fulfillment of specific orders and absence of mitigating factors

    Evidence — Compliance with discovery orders — Production of documents — Examination of affiants — Refusal to answer examination questions or produce relevant documents required by court orders — Whether the applicant’s partial documentary submissions and claims satisfy compliance obligations — The court ruled that compliance requires specific document production and viva voce answers to outstanding questions

    Professional responsibility — Allegations of misconduct — Accusations of fraud, conspiracy, and obstruction of justice against opposing counsel — Relevance in contempt proceedings — Are unfounded allegations against lawyers admissible in setting aside a contempt order? — Court held that such allegations were baseless, irrelevant, and designed to obstruct judicial proceedings, reinforcing ongoing contempt

    Civil procedure — Costs in contempt proceedings — Substantial indemnity costs requested by respondents — Settlement offers made prior to hearing — Whether costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis are warranted — Costs awarded to respondents on substantial indemnity basis, considering applicant’s vexatious and obstructionist conduct

    Civil procedure — Incarceration for contempt — Security risks during imprisonment — Applicant’s request for protective custody and access to materials for appeal preparation — Whether special accommodations should be ordered by the court — Court declined jurisdiction over prison allocation and access to materials, leaving these matters to correctional authorities

    Show more

    […]   Mr. Best failed to attend court on January 15, 2010 as ordered by me. Accordingly, a finding of contempt was made and a committal warrant was also issued on that date.   […]  The orders require Mr. Best to produce documents and attend on an examination. Mr. Best failed to produce the documents or attend the examination as required by the orders.   […]  

  4. 4.

    eText on Wrongful Dismissal and Employment Law, 2012 CanLIIDocs 1 (updated in 2026)

    Peter M Neumann, Jeffrey Sack – Lancaster House

    2,914 pages  |  cited by 9 documents

    termination of employment — employee remedies — employer remedies — rights and obligations — employment — Charter rights

    Labour and employment Rights and freedoms

    […]   OF "HIGH END" DAMAGES IN LIEU OF NOTICE, AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES FOR FALSE ALLEGATION OF DISHONESTY Although it found that a lower court judge was at the "high end" of the scale in awarding a managerial employee of a car dealership six months' pay in lieu of notice after 22 months' service and aggravated damages of $20,000   […]   OF "HIGH END" DAMAGES IN LIEU OF NOTICE, AND AGGRAVATED DAMAGES FOR FALSE ALLEGATION OF DISHONESTY Although it found that a lower court judge was at the "high end" of the scale in awarding a managerial employee of a car dealership six months' pay in lieu of notice after 22 months' service and aggravated damages of $20,000   […]

  5. 5.

    Tort Law: Cases and Commentaries, 2021 CanLIIDocs 1859 (updated in 2025)

    Samuel Beswick – CanLII Authors Program

    2,092 pages  |  cited by 1 document

    trespass — mental suffering — invasion — privacy — remedies — injury — negligence — duty of care — damage — nuisance

    Civil liability Evidence and procedure

    […]   130. The governing rule in determining the appropriate quantum of punitive damages is proportionality. The overall award, i.e. compensatory damages plus punitive damages plus any other punishment related to the same misconduct, should be rationally related to the objectives for which the punitive damages are awarded   […]   But the trial judge failed to take a required step in the analysis of whether an award of punitive damages was warranted. She did not address, and made no finding that the award of general and aggravated damages was insufficient to achieve the goals of denunciation and deterrence.   […]

  6. 6.

    JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter, 2025 3-19, 2025 CanLIIDocs 3127

    Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP – JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter

    139 pages

    permission — delay — solicitor-client costs — argued — awarded

    Evidence and procedure

    […]   The Defendant’s lack of disclosure regarding his finances and his failure to file his 2023 tax return undermined the integrity of the proceedings and warranted denial of the punitive doubling remedy. Accordingly, the Application to vary the earlier Costs Decision was dismissed.   […]   Following a detailed analysis, Justice Eamon held that MM was entitled to Costs, but not on a solicitor-client basis. To award solicitor-client Costs, the Lawyer’s Account must be assessed either by a Court or by an Assessment Officer.   […]

  7. 7.

    Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario v. Gujral, 2020 ONCJ 307 (CanLII)

    Ontario Court of Justice

    2020-07-03  |  220 pages  |  cited by 2 documents

    AI-generated

    A defendant was fined $16,000, placed on probation, and ordered to pay $10,000 in costs for unlawfully using professional accounting designations without membership in Ontario's regulatory bodies. The court emphasized deterrence, proportionality, and the defendant's ability to pay while addressing improper conduct during proceedings.

    Criminal or statutory infractions Professions and occupations Sentencing

    Professional responsibility — Regulatory offences — Costs incurred by professional body — Offender convicted of eight regulatory offences under three professional accounting statutes — Should the offender pay CPA Ontario’s reasonable legal costs for investigation and prosecution? — Costs justified to prevent burden on collective membership — Costs awarded must be reasonable and not punitive — CPA Ontario awarded $10,000 in costs — Certified Management Accountants Act, 2010, s. 28(1); Chartered Accountants Act, 2010, s. 29(1); Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario Act, 2017, s. 31(1)

    Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Fines and probation — Offender convicted of eight regulatory offences for unlawful use of professional accounting designations — What is the appropriate sentence, including fines and probation? — Fines totaling $16,000 imposed based on proportionality, deterrence, and offender’s ability to pay — Two-year probationary period imposed to address specific deterrence — Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 72(2)

    Criminal procedure — Sentencing factors — Ability to pay — Proportionality — Offender’s conduct — Offender claimed inability to pay fines and costs — Court considered offender’s income, assets, and improper conduct during proceedings — Fines and costs adjusted to reflect offender’s financial circumstances and improper conduct — Costs reduced to $10,000 — Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. B-3, s. 178(1)(a)

    Criminal procedure — Probation — Continued unlawful conduct — Offender continued to unlawfully use foreign professional accounting designations up to sentencing hearing — Does continued unlawful conduct justify probation? — Two-year probationary period imposed with statutory conditions to prevent recurrence of offences — Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 72(2)

    Show more

    […]   They may be made more significant if the presiding judge orders not simply ‘party and party’ costs, as they are traditionally known, but ‘solicitor client’ costs which are still higher. Party and party costs are usually estimated at 50-60% of lawyers’ actual fees; solicitor-client costs will cover up to 90% of such fees.   […]  These aggravating and mitigating factors include the lawyer's prior discipline record, the lawyer's reaction to the discipline process, the restitution (if any) made by the lawyer, the length of time the lawyer has been in practice, the lawyer's general character and the lawyer's mental state.   […]  

  8. 8.

    Substantial & Punitive Costs Awards Against Self-Represented Litigants, 2018 CanLIIDocs 10548

    Ashley Haines, Julie Macfarlane – National Self-Represented Litigants Project

    14 pages

    substantial or punitive costs — behavior — costs awards — indemnity

    Evidence and procedure

    […]   are represented by a lawyer. At NSRLP our attention was first drawn to this issue as a result of our intervention in Pintea v Johns,3 where an SRL who failed to attend two case management conferences was held in contempt and ordered to pay $83,000 in costs (this order was later set aside by the Supreme Court of Canada).4   […]   or punitive costs awards relative to the total number of cases appearing in the CLD. Most noticeable is the province of Alberta, where only 2 of the 29 cases in the CLD from the Alberta Court of the Queen’s Bench, Alberta Court of Appeal, and Alberta Privy Council involved an award of substantial or punitive costs.   […]

  9. 9.

    Costs and the Changing Culture of Canadian Family Justice, 2017 CanLIIDocs 4025

    Mary Jo Maur, Nicholas Bala, Alexandra Terrana – [Source not specified]

    246 pages

    tariff — family — self-represented litigants — success — conferences

    Family

    […]   the power in any civil proceedings, if the court finds that a “judicial demand or pleading...is abusive” to order “legal costs, damages for injury suffered by another party, including to cover the professional fees and disbursements incurred by that other party, or award punitive damages if warranted by the circumstances”.   […]   345 M (KC) v M(BT), 2015 ABQB 502 346 Gardner v Gardner, 2008 ABQB 750 at para 30 . 347 Katrib v. Katrib, 2008 ABQB 162, in which Read, J. held that solicitor and client costs were like punitive damages, and should only be used in “extreme” cases of bad conduct.   […]

  10. 10.

    Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues, 2015 CanLIIDocs 4962

    University of Windsor, Faculty of Law – Windsor Review of Legal and Social Issues

    308 pages  |  cited by 1 document

    professors — witchcraft — reinstatement — deportation — Civil Recovery letters — Prosecutorial Discretion — Disability

    Evidence and procedure Professions and occupations Rights and freedoms

    […]   met by lawyers who send SCRLs without regard for whether the circumstances amount to an extraordinary case where punitive damages may be warranted.   […]   To the extent that SCRLs operate as form letters with no investigation by the lawyer to ascertain whether the particular circumstances amount to an extraordinary case where compensatory or punitive damages might be warranted, it is difficult to see how lawyers who perform this task are acting to further their clients’ legal   […]

  11. 11.

    Law Society of Upper Canada v. Jeffrey Cathcart Barnabe, 2008 ONLSHP 94 (CanLII)

    Law Society Tribunal

    2008-08-26  |  30 pages  |  cited by 3 documents

    AI-generated

    A lawyer, found ungovernable, committed 17 counts of professional misconduct, including practicing while suspended, misusing trust funds, and failing to serve clients. The Panel revoked the lawyer's licence, citing dishonesty, lack of integrity, and failure to comply with professional and regulatory obligations. Compensation and costs were also ordered.

    Professional responsibility — Professional misconduct — Law Society Act, s. 33, s. 49.8 — Do the admitted facts establish professional misconduct under the Act and Rules of Professional Conduct? — Practising while suspended, failure to serve clients, mishandling trust funds under By‑law 19, failure to respond under Rule 6.02 — Findings on all 17 counts — Professional misconduct found

    Professional responsibility — Discipline — Ungovernability — Should the Lawyer be found ungovernable and have his licence revoked? — Persistent non‑compliance with suspensions under s. 46(1), failure to cooperate, holding out while suspended, dishonesty and lack of integrity — Salomaa considered on definition of ungovernability — Lengthy suspensions and flouting of Law Society authority — Licence revoked

    Professional responsibility — Remedies — Restitution and costs — What reimbursement and costs orders flow from the misconduct findings? — Reimbursement to Compensation Fund for grants, repayment of retainers to identified clients, and costs payable to the Law Society — Trust monies received while suspended not earned, no accounting rendered — Quantum specified in decision — Restitution and costs ordered

    Professional responsibility — Sanctions — Resignation versus revocation — Should the Lawyer be permitted to resign instead of revocation? — Request to surrender licence to pursue appointment refused — No mitigating circumstances, Agreed Statement of Facts entered too late, dishonesty found — Salomaa applied on limited cases for permission to resign — Permission to resign refused

    Show more

    […]   After October 5, 2005, the Lawyer failed to attend at any of the court dates or to make suitable arrangements for Mr. A. or an agent to attend.   […]  He did not keep Mr. A. apprised of court dates and on August 18, 2006 a bench warrant with discretion was issued. The Lawyer never advised Mr. A. of the bench warrant.   […]  

  12. 12.

    JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter, 2023 3-9, 2023 CanLIIDocs 857

    Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP – JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter

    117 pages

    noted — delay — permission — litigation — dismissed

    Evidence and procedure

    […]   In this case, because liability had been admitted, issues in the Action were limited to damages and mitigation of damages. The Amended Statement of Claim included a claim for punitive and exemplary damages.   […]   The Court determined that the Applicants made a conscious decision not to attend the hearing at which Judgment was granted rather than failing to attend due to accident or mistake.   […]

  13. 13.

    JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter, 2026 3-20, 2026 CanLIIDocs 272

    Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP – JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter

    138 pages

    contempt — costs — evidence — litigation — permission

    Evidence and procedure

    […]   found that the Tenant could not recover increased construction costs and refused to approve any amendment to plead such damages. The Tenant also sought leave to amend its pleadings to claim punitive damages based on three specific findings against the Landlord: (i) the imposition of an “asbestos management plan” without   […]   The Court explained that punitive damages, while not dependent on a finding of bad faith, are exceptional and usually awarded in addition to compensatory damages.   […]

  14. 14.

    Regulatory and Economic Offences Newsletter, April 2019, 2019 CanLIIDocs 3982

    Robert Morin – Regulatory and Economic Offences Newsletter

    38 pages

    production — search — offences — sentencing — prosecution

    Commerce and industry Criminal or statutory infractions Environment

    […]   He failed to attend as directed and was properly convicted. R v Dockman, 2019 ABQB 149 (CanLII)   […]   All of this is aggravating to his eventual sentence. There is no suggestion Dockman acted to either actively falsify records or mislead the Regulator, actions which might have immediately placed him at the highest end of the culpability scale.   […]

  15. 15.

    JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter, 2023 3-11, 2023 CanLIIDocs 2831

    Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP – JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter

    105 pages

    delay — evidence — found — litigation — amendments

    Evidence and procedure

    […]   Neither Rule 2.23 nor McKenzie permit representation by non-lawyers in the Court of King’s Bench. For this reason and others, the individual was prohibited from further participation in the litigation, and from representing or providing legal assistance in other Court of King’s Bench proceedings.   […]   as per the RBC Action; the Defendant advised that her lawyer (not named) would contact the Alberta Court of King’s Bench unless her requests were met and the lawyer never materialized; the Clerk hung up when the Defendant repeatedly called; additional telephone calls were received from persons who purported to not be the   […]

  16. 16.

    The Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario v. Chouchaoui et al., 2025 ONSC 5850 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2025-10-15  |  20 pages

    AI-generated

    The Court sentenced an unlicensed individual to 14 days' incarceration for contempt, including breaching an injunction by misusing an engineer's seal, emphasizing deterrence, public safety, and respect for regulatory frameworks.

    Criminal or statutory infractions Sentencing

    Professional responsibility — Civil contempt — Breach of injunction — Misuse of professional engineer’s seal — Unlicensed practice of engineering — Fraudulent use of engineering seal undermining public safety and regulatory framework — Does misuse of a professional engineer’s seal constitute a serious aggravating factor? — Penalty must reflect seriousness of breach and uphold public confidence in self-regulating professions — Professional Engineers Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.28

    Civil procedure — Contempt proceedings — Sentencing principles — Specific and general deterrence — Proportionality of penalty to wrongdoing — Broad discretion under r. 60.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure — What is the appropriate penalty for civil contempt? — Imprisonment ordered as penalty of last resort for deliberate and repeated breaches of court orders

    Health — Mitigating factors — Health issues and financial distress — Evidence of mental and physical health concerns — Lack of sufficient documentation to establish significant mitigation — What role do mitigating factors play in sentencing for civil contempt? — Health concerns considered but not determinative in avoiding incarceration

    Civil procedure — Costs — Substantial indemnity costs — Rebuttable presumption of substantial indemnity costs for successful party in contempt motions — Should substantial indemnity costs be awarded? — Costs awarded to applicant with payment plan ordered — Rules of Civil Procedure, r. 60.11

    Show more

    […]   He failed to deliver responding evidence by sworn affidavit, cancelled his cross-examination last-minute, failed to attend a rescheduled cross- examination, and overall failed to communicate with PEO.   […]  This case is not entirely the same because the court had to secure bench warrants on two occasions to secure the defendant’s attendance. As well this defendant had a criminal record as well as outstanding fraud charges and continued to fail to offer himself up for examination in aid of execution.   […]  

  17. 17.

    Law Students' Legal Advice Manual, 49th ed, 2019 CanLIIDocs 3957 (updated in 2025)

    UBC Law Students' Legal Advice Program

    1,892 pages

    criminal law — youth justice — canadian charter of rights — marriage — divorce — child support — children — adoption

    Criminal or statutory infractions Family Rights and freedoms

    […]   double compensation where punitive damages and aggravated damages are considered in the same case. Punitive damages are currently on an upward trend in BC. Since the Honda decision, courts have generally required evidence showing that an employee suffered mental harm to award aggravated damages, and this has left certain   […]   claiming punitive damages. See the paper entitled “Aggravated and Punitive Damages and Related Legal Issues” for a table of cases in which aggravated or punitive damages were sought in order to compare your situation to others and determine an appropriate amount of damages (see section V.C.13 Aggravated and Punitive Damages   […]

  18. 18.

    1994 Survey of Decisions of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, 1995 CanLIIDocs 503

    Ryan Rempel – Saskatchewan Law Review

    107 pages

    sentence — custody — offences — evidence

    Criminal or statutory infractions Evidence and procedure Family

    […]   C. MITIGATING FACTORS In R. v. J.A.S. 132 the defendant had failed to comply with probation orders relating to curfew, whereabouts and court attendance.   […]   Another aggravating factor was the malicious damage done during the thefts. Considering these factors, the Court found that a custodial disposition would normally be required, despite the lack of a previous record.   […]

  19. 19.

    The Criminal Law Ebook, 2022 CanLIIDocs 3273

    Canadian Legal Information Institute

    917 pages  |  cited by 1 document

    detention and arrest — search and seizure — indictments — disclosure — trial procedure — defences — sentencing — appeals

    Criminal or statutory infractions Evidence and procedure

    […]   Another common use of an arrest warrant is to compel appearance after an accused fails to attend court as required on a summons, appearance notice, or undertaking.[48] Arrest warrants issued for this reason are limited to circumstances where the accused fails to attend court, as opposed to failing to attend court properly.   […]   In Jayaraj ,[49] a bench warrant was issued under section 512(2) because the accused failed to stop recording his court appearance to set trial dates, after being ordered not to by the presiding judge.[50] The bench warrant was issued on the basis that while the accused attended court, he was not doing so properly, as he   […]

  20. 20.

    JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter, 2019 2-14, 2019 CanLIIDocs 1977

    Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP – JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter

    140 pages

    delay — habeas corpus — minor — injuries

    Evidence and procedure Technology

    […]   In obiter Justice Renke addressed the issue as to whether it was appropriate to award punitive damages in an instance where punitive damages were initially sought.   […]   More generally, the significant quantum of damages sought was properly before the Court of Queen’s Bench as a remedy exceeding the jurisdiction of the Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (“RTDRS”).   […]

  21. 21.

    Yenovkian v. Gulian, 2019 ONSC 7279 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2019-12-17  |  70 pages  |  cited by 52 documents

    AI-generated

    In a high-conflict family law case, the Court awarded sole custody to the mother, imposed a restraining order, and ordered the father to pay damages for cyberbullying, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of mental suffering. The father’s online harassment and disregard for court orders were central to the decision.

    Child custody and access Family Practice and procedure

    Family — Restraining orders — Fear for safety — Applicant engaged in cyberbullying, harassment, and threats against the respondent and her family — Should the court grant a permanent restraining order? — Court granted a permanent restraining order under section 46 of the Family Law Act due to persistent and egregious conduct threatening physical and psychological safety

    Family — Custody and access — Best interests of the child — Sole custody awarded to the respondent — Applicant’s conduct, including cyberbullying and invasion of privacy, deemed harmful to children — Should the children reside with the respondent in England? — Sole custody and relocation to England granted under the best interests of the child framework

    Family — Spousal support — Compensatory and needs-based support — Respondent sacrificed career for family and has primary caregiving responsibilities — Should spousal support be awarded, and in what amount? — Spousal support awarded on the high end of the range under the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines

    Family — Child support and equalization — Imputed income — Applicant failed to provide financial disclosure — How should child support, spousal support, and equalization payments be calculated? — Income imputed to the applicant; child and spousal support calculated under the Federal Child Support Guidelines and Divorce Act

    Torts — Intentional infliction of mental suffering and invasion of privacy — Cyberbullying and false light publicity — Applicant engaged in a campaign of harassment, including false allegations and public disclosure of private facts — Should damages be awarded for tortious conduct? — Damages awarded for intentional infliction of mental suffering ($50,000), invasion of privacy ($100,000), and punitive damages ($150,000)

    Show more

    […]   (4) the governing rule for quantum is proportionality. The overall award, that is to say compensatory damages plus punitive damages plus any other punishment related to the same misconduct, should be rationally related to the objectives for which the punitive damages are awarded (retribution, deterrence and denunciation)   […]   As a result, I set the punitive damages at $150,000.00, having considered all the applicable factors, and having determined that an additional punitive damages award is required in this case to express the court’s denunciation, deterrence, and punishment, and finding that this punitive damages award is proportional in   […]  

  22. 22.

    LawNow Magazine, 2014 CanLIIDocs 156

    Charles R Davidson, Peter Bowal, Nicole Romanow et al – LawNow Magazine

    78 pages

    prize — offence — criminal — police

    Criminal or statutory infractions

    […]   Mr. Richards was awarded $1,000 for moral injuries and the quantum damages awarded were $100,000. T and TCM appealed, and the Court concluded that the company did not violate the Consumer Protection Act. The Court of Appeal set aside the award of compensatory and punitive damages.   […]   a contract between himself and T and TCM. Therefore, the company committed a civil fault that triggered their extra contractual liability, so the Superior Court ruling of $1,000 for moral injuries was warranted. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that an award of punitive damages was justified, but should be varied.   […]

  23. 23.

    Peoples Trust Company v. Atas, 2018 ONSC 58 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2018-01-03  |  232 pages  |  cited by 84 documents

    AI-generated

    The Court declared a litigant vexatious due to persistent, unreasonable, and abusive legal actions spanning over a decade, including duplicative lawsuits, harassment, and defamation. The litigant is now restricted from initiating or continuing proceedings without prior judicial approval to protect the justice system and opposing parties.

    Practice and procedure

    Civil procedure — Vexatious litigants — Section 140 of the Courts of Justice Act — Persistent and unreasonable litigation conduct — Respondent engaged in over 40 lawsuits, duplicative claims, and abusive litigation tactics — Should the respondent be declared a vexatious litigant? — Test for determining vexatiousness includes persistence, lack of reasonable grounds, and abuse of process — Respondent declared vexatious, with restrictions imposed on future litigation

    Civil procedure — Remedies for vexatious litigation — Restrictions on court access — Chavali orders — Respondent required to seek leave before commencing or continuing proceedings — Should additional restrictions, such as prohibiting administrative complaints or revoking fee waivers, be imposed? — Court imposed leave requirements, revoked fee waivers, and directed disclosure of vexatious litigant status in administrative complaints

    Administrative law — Extra-litigation conduct — Defamatory internet postings and administrative complaints — Respondent engaged in harassment through online defamation and regulatory complaints — Can such conduct be considered in determining vexatiousness under section 140? — Court held that extra-litigation conduct is relevant to assessing abuse of process and vexatiousness

    Civil procedure — Jurisdiction of case management judge — Reasonable apprehension of bias — Case management judge presided over section 140 application — Does the judge’s involvement in case management create bias? — Court held that case management judge had jurisdiction and no reasonable apprehension of bias existed

    Civil procedure — Fee waivers — Revocation due to misuse of court system — Respondent benefited from fee waivers while engaging in vexatious litigation — Should fee waivers be revoked? — Court revoked fee waivers, finding misuse of the court system justified the decision

    Show more

    […]   Ontario.”[72] Ms Atas claims damages of $1 million and punitive damages of $150,000 in respect to an action for undisclosed commissions respecting $178,000 in mortgage advances.   […]  (e) 14-CV-504825 issued against Mr Stancer, his law firm, Mr Rose, his law firm, Blair Coleman Rose and Scott Kelly for $25 million, plus aggravated, exemplary and punitive damages, as well as an order that the defendants return “the $292,000 obtained from David Bresver from mortgage proceeds of Peoples Trust Company on May   […]  

  24. 24.

    Law Society of Upper Canada v. Elsie Eugina Peters, 2011 ONLSHP 66 (CanLII)

    Law Society Tribunal

    2011-06-22  |  46 pages  |  cited by 3 documents

    AI-generated

    The Panel granted an interlocutory suspension of a lawyer’s licence due to extensive findings of incompetence, lack of candour, disregard for court orders, and repeated professional misconduct, which collectively posed a significant risk to the public and the administration of justice.

    Professional responsibility — Interim measures — Interlocutory suspension — Law Society Act, s. 49.27 — Whether reasonable grounds show significant risk to the public or to the public interest in the administration of justice — Missed court dates, practising while suspended, costs against lawyer, lack of candour and competence — Risk to integrity and reputation of the profession — Interlocutory suspension granted

    Procedure — Interlocutory motions — Standard of proof and evidence — Reasonable grounds to believe as a low standard, more than suspicion, less than balance of probabilities — Relaxed evidentiary rules on interlocutory suspension motions — Not required to prove misconduct on the merits — Mugesera, Nawab, Sullivan cited — Standards applied

    Procedure — Open hearings — Confidentiality in child protection — Child and Family Services Act, ss. 45(8) and 45(10) — Should transcripts and sensitive materials be received in the absence of the public? — Order binds tribunal, names redacted, balancing transparency and protection of children and intimate details — Confidentiality order granted

    Professional responsibility — Court orders and status — Practising while suspended — Whether practising while suspended and failing to comply with costs orders demonstrate conduct posing significant risk — Duty as officer of the Court, ungovernable behaviour, blame shifting — Costs orders outstanding, mistrial, wasted court time — Interlocutory suspension granted

    Show more

    […]   Although the Law Society has mechanisms in place to notify lawyers of their being in arrears and pending suspensions as well as notice of the suspension, there is no doubt that it is ultimately the obligation of lawyers to monitor their finances, remain aware and vigilant regarding deadlines and attend to timely payment.   […]  In some instances, the Lawyer’s responses appear to be misleading or lacking in candour. [179] The Lawyer’s pattern of conduct puts the public at risk, damages the integrity of the profession as a whole, and harms the administration of justice.   […]  

  25. 25.

    JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter, 2019 2-15, 2019 CanLIIDocs 2616

    Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP – JSS Barristers Rules of Court Newsletter

    101 pages

    delay — litigation — Alberta Rules of Court

    Evidence and procedure

    […]   The Defendant was properly served with the Application and Affidavit, but failed to attend the hearing. The Order sought by the Plaintiff was granted in the Defendant’s absence.   […]   Justice Lema found that the Defendant had failed to describe what caused him to fail to properly note the date of the hearing, and inferred that it was as a result of either a lack of diligence, or a conscious decision to allow the litigation to proceed without him until he saw the Order granted against him, neither of   […]

  26. 1.

    Law Society of Upper Canada v. Abdul Gabbar Khan, 2013 ONLSHP 117 (CanLII)

    Law Society Tribunal

    2013-08-23  |  61 pages  |  cited by 4 documents

    AI-generated

    A paralegal's license was revoked due to systemic professional misconduct, including court absences, dishonesty, improper client representation, and failure to co-operate with regulatory investigations, meeting the standard for ungovernability.

    Professional responsibility — Professional misconduct — Paralegal discipline — Whether conduct brought profession into disrepute — Failures to attend mandatory court appearances and chronic lateness — Misleading clients and tribunal on guilty plea and withdrawal — Acting outside paralegal scope on “Over 80” — Breaches of Paralegal Rules of Conduct established — Professional misconduct foundProfessional responsibility — Penalty — Ungovernability — Whether licence revocation appropriate — Pattern of misconduct, prior suspension, lack of remorse — Integrity standard from LSUC v. Hennessey applied — Ungovernability factors from LSUC v. Fenik considered — Duties under Rules 1.03(a) and 1.03(c) stressed — Licence revokedProfessional responsibility — Regulatory compliance — Duty to cooperate — Whether breaches of Law Society Act s. 49.3 proven — Failure to provide files, information and attend interview — Non‑compliance with Rule 9.01 and monitoring requests — Frustration of file return to client — Continuing non‑cooperation up to decision — Breaches establishedProfessional responsibility — Costs — Discipline hearing — Whether substantial costs should be ordered — Numerous adjournments, failures to appear and procedural irregularities attributable to respondent — Inability or refusal to pay not a reason to reduce — Quantum supported by documented prosecution expenses — Costs ordered at fixed amount

    Show more 

    […]   M.D.D. was paged three times, and then a bench warrant was issued for M.D.D. under s. 524 of the Criminal Code for failure to appear in court.   […]  A.A. said that Mr. Khan told him he had something else to do, and so had asked someone to show up for him, but that this other person had failed to appear. The transcript of the court hearing that day indicates that the justice of the peace also asked Mr. Khan if he had spoken to duty counsel to ask duty counsel to address   […]  

    2.

    Law Society of Upper Canada v. Antonios Karalis, 2009 ONLSHP 87 (CanLII)

    Law Society Tribunal

    2009-09-22  |  22 pages  |  cited by 17 documents

    AI-generated

    The Panel ordered the interim suspension of a lawyer's licence, citing evidence of pervasive integrity issues and significant public risks from alleged misconduct, including deceit, failure to serve clients, and practising while suspended. Restrictions on practice were deemed insufficient to mitigate harm pending further investigation and final determination.

    Professional responsibility — Interlocutory suspension — Significant risk of harm — Whether reasonable grounds exist to believe the Lawyer poses a significant risk to members of the public and to the public interest in the administration of justice under s. 49.27 of the Law Society Act — Cumulative misconduct and integrity concerns assessed — Public protection prioritised — Interlocutory suspension grantedProfessional responsibility — Interim measures — Restrictions versus suspension — Would restrictions on the manner of practice likely reduce the significant risk of harm to an acceptable degree? — Practice management limits considered insufficient where integrity concerns permeate practice — Less onerous measures rejected given ongoing danger to clients and administration of justice — Interlocutory suspension orderedStatutory interpretation — Law Society Act, s. 49.27 — Threshold for relief — Interpretation of amendments lowering requirement from necessity for protection of the public to reasonable grounds of significant risk — Meaning of significant risk and likelihood of risk reduction analysed — Interim jurisdiction and preconditions clarified — Interlocutory suspension made under amended provisionEvidence — Interlocutory motion — Credibility and reliability — Affidavits, documents and viva voce testimony weighed under relaxed admissibility rules — Whether evidentiary foundation supports significant risk finding — Integrity of seizure journal and explanations scrutinised — Multiple consistent complaints considered cumulatively — Order based on credible evidentiary basis — Suspension confirmed

    Show more 

    […]   Failure to Serve a Client by Failing to Appear in Court Resulting in Bench Warrant and Arrest of Client Slyvie Doiron (Duty Counsel)   […]  The client had signed a designation, meaning that he did not need to personally attend certain court dates, but could be represented instead by his counsel or agent. At one point, the Lawyer’s non-attendance resulted in a bench warrant being issued for the client and the client’s subsequent incarceration.   […]  

    3.

    R. v. E.V., 2021 ONSC 6501 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2021-10-05  |  27 pages

    AI-generated

    The Court ruled that continued detention of the Accused was unjustified, as pre-trial custody exceeded a likely sentence. Conditions of release were crafted to address risks, emphasizing fairness for vulnerable populations lacking sureties.

    Criminal or statutory infractions Practice and procedure

    Criminal procedure — Detention review — Section 525 of the Criminal Code — Accused detained on secondary grounds — Whether continued detention is justified under primary, secondary, or tertiary grounds — Balancing risks of release against the accused’s liberty interests — Application of section 515(10) of the Criminal Code — Proportionality of detention to anticipated sentence — Governing principles from R. v. Myers and R. v. IsmailRights and freedoms — Socio-economic disadvantage — Vulnerable populations — Section 493.2 of the Criminal Code — Accused lacked fixed address, phone, or surety — Impact of socio-economic marginalization on bail decisions — Requirement to consider circumstances of vulnerable populations — Application of principles from R. v. Summers and R. v. TunneySocial welfare — Pre-trial custody — Proportionality of detention — Accused spent significant time in custody awaiting trial — Whether pre-trial custody exceeds anticipated sentence — Risk of coercing guilty pleas — Application of proportionality principles under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code — Governing framework from R. v. Myers and R. v. ElliottEvidence — Bail conditions — Crafting conditions of release — Mitigating risks in absence of surety — Conditions addressing primary and secondary ground concerns — Notification of address and contact information — Prohibition of contact with complainants — Balancing risks of reoffending with liberty interests — Governing principles from R. v. Zora

    Show more 

    […]   (iv) January 26 and March 23, 2021 – Bench Warrants for Non-Attendance at Court [24] It appears from the materials before me that two bench warrants were issued as a result of non-attendance at court dates in the Ontario Court of Justice.   […]  E.V.’s criminal record reveals three convictions for failing to appear in court. He faces a charge of failing to comply with recognizance for allegedly failing to report to Bail Program, which is also a form of failing to attend (that is, failing to attend to report as required).   […]  

    4.

    R. v. Dean, 2012 ONCJ 590 (CanLII)

    Ontario Court of Justice

    2012-09-21  |  9 pages

    AI-generated

    Criminal or statutory infractions Practice and procedure

    Criminal law — Judicial interim release

    […]   The case at bar, I believe, has the makings of an Order of Detention primarily as a result of his Criminal record. E. THE PLAN OF RELEASE 11. The Crown’s concerns are on the Primary and Secondary grounds, founded, I presume, on the accused’s prior convictions on two counts of failing to appear in court, as well as   […]   29. I don’t believe that he cannot remember any of the details of his criminal convictions or his two outstanding Warrants of Committal, one of which the Crown was able to ascertain is a Bench Warrant from the Provincial Offences Court in Burlington, apparently for failing to appear in court pursuant to his release on a   […]

    5.

    R. v. David Ewen Seguin, 2011 ONSC 4678 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2011-08-05  |  10 pages

    AI-generated

    Practice and procedure Rights and freedoms

    Criminal law — Defences — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b)

    […]   [23] July 10, 2006 Mr. Seguin appeared without counsel before a justice of the peace. [24] The Crown counsel told the court that Mr. Seguin had been reporting to police in Montreal but failed to attend his preliminary inquiry.   […]   By then he had no counsel and had to go through the entire legal aid process again. However, to be realistic, he might have had to do that at any time after March 2007, when he failed to appear.   […]

    6.

    Kashibhai Group Inc. (Thornton General Store) v. Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing, 2018 CanLII 50223 (ON LAT)

    Ontario Licence Appeal Tribunal

    2018-05-30  |  13 pages

    application materials — convictions — offences — honesty — past

    […]   In addition, he failed to appear for his court date and a bench warrant was issued. 17. Following his breach of the police undertakings, a Justice of the Peace ordered a recognizance with the same two conditions placed on B.P., being abstinence from alcohol and abstaining from contact with V.P. A probation order was issued   […]   Nonetheless, the Tribunal is of the view that B.P.’s present failure to take responsibility for his past actions, including his attempt to deflect responsibility for his criminal conduct, as well as to attribute his provision of false statements and omissions in the application materials to the lawyers, paralegals, former   […]

    7.

    Law Society of Upper Canada v. Christopher Charles Watkins, 2001 CanLII 26645 (ON LST)

    Law Society Tribunal

    2001-08-22  |  23 pages  |  cited by 2 documents

    AI-generated

    A lawyer faced disciplinary action for professional misconduct, including conflicts of interest, misleading affidavits, offering compensation to witnesses, and breaching a trust fund undertaking. A 15-day suspension, practice review, and ethics training were imposed to address these serious violations and safeguard public trust in the profession.

    Professional responsibility — Conflicts of interest — Concurrent representation in related criminal matters — Did representing an accused and the alleged victim create a conflict? — Acceptance of Legal Aid certificate and appearances for both spouses — Cross examination of one client in other client’s trial — Breach of Rule 2.04 acknowledged — Professional misconduct admitted — Suspension orderedProfessional responsibility — Quality of service — Conscientious, diligent and efficient service — Did counsel fail to provide adequate quality of service in criminal files? — Inadequate review of affidavits for bail review application — Delegation without proper supervision under Rule 5.01(2) — Prejudiced adjournment request causing bench warrant and bail estreat — Breach of Rule 2.01 — Professional misconduct admitted — Suspension orderedProfessional responsibility — Duties as advocate — Duty to court and dealing with witnesses — Whether filing misleading affidavits and proposing compensation to Crown witnesses breached Rules 4.01 and 4.03 — Misleading materials tendered then application abandoned — Solicitor invited witnesses to endorse withdrawal and offered lost wages — Conduct undermining administration of justice — Professional misconduct admitted — Suspension orderedProfessional responsibility — Undertakings and trust monies — Solicitor’s undertaking in real estate transaction — Did releasing holdback funds breach the undertaking and proper use of trust funds? — Holdback released to clients without notice despite demand — Failure to honour undertaking given on behalf of firm — Proper use of trust funds emphasised — s. 42 Law Society Act practice review — Suspension ordered

    Show more 

    […]   She was released by way of an Appearance Notice with a first appearance date of October 22, 1999. 6. On October 22, 1999, Ms. Wyrozub appeared at the Thunder Bay court and was assisted by duty counsel (Tab 1).   […]  On the next two dates of December 10 and December 13, 1999, the member appeared in court with Ms. Wyrozub (Tab 1). 10. On the December 15, 1999 appearance for Albert Wyrozub, Robert Sutherland appeared and went on record as agent for counsel of record, the member.   […]  

    8.

    R. v. Amini, 2016 ONCJ 116 (CanLII)

    Ontario Court of Justice

    2016-02-24  |  9 pages

    AI-generated

    The Court denied the accused's motion for release pending appeal, citing frivolous grounds of appeal, flight risk, and public interest in deterring sophisticated repeat fraud involving vehicle odometer tampering and forged documents.

    Criminal or statutory infractions Practice and procedure

    Procedure — Release pending appeal — Three‑pronged test — Whether appeal is not frivolous — Ex‑parte trial, identification from photographs, adequacy of reasons, and sentence challenged — Identification issues go to weight for trier of fact — Reasons clear and comprehensive — Sentence fit and entitled to deference — First prong not met — Application dismissedProcedure — Release pending appeal — Surrender into custody — Will the applicant re‑surrender or is he a flight risk? — Significant custodial sentence outstanding and further sentencing pending — Prior convictions for importing and possessing false passports — Use of aliases and elaborate efforts to cover tracks — Risk of disappearance established — Application dismissedProcedure — Release pending appeal — Public interest — Is continued detention necessary in the public interest? — Protection of the public from insidious, repeated fraud — Lack of diligence in perfecting appeal and transcript orders — Prior similar convictions and unpaid large fine — Expedite potential noted but detention warranted — Application dismissed

    Show more 

    […]   6. Mr. Amini appeared in person on the first two court dates. He then failed to appear in court until after his convictions.   […]  Obviously, identification was not expected to be an issue at trial, until the defendant failed to appear at his trial. Ideally, the defendant might have been identified through a type of photo lineup.   […]  

    9.

    R. v J.T., 2021 ONSC 1532 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2021-03-26  |  9 pages  |  cited by 1 document

    AI-generated

    The Court sentenced the Accused to 12 months for absconding during trial, prioritizing deterrence and denunciation over mitigating factors like deportation consequences.

    Criminal or statutory infractions Sentencing

    Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Failure to attend court — Accused absconded during second trial after victims testified — Sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation, and proportionality emphasized — Does absconding during trial warrant a higher sentence? — Sentence of 12 months imposed, with pre-trial custody credit — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 145(2)(b)Citizenship and immigration — Collateral consequences — Deportation — Accused facing deportation due to prior convictions — Should immigration consequences influence the length of a sentence? — Court held immigration consequences are relevant but not compelling in this case — Principles of individualization and parity in sentencing considered — R. v. Pham, 2013 SCC 15 appliedCriminal procedure — Sentencing principles — Proportionality — Restraint — Totality — Court considered aggravating factors, including absconding during trial and assuming a false identity — Mitigating factors, including age and family ties, found insufficient to reduce sentence — Emphasis on denunciation and deterrence for absconding offences — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2

    Show more 

    […]   The appellant stopped reporting to his bail supervisor, his third counsel lost contact with him and withdrew, the appellant failed to appear at his third scheduled murder trial, he moved to British Columbia, lived there for about 18 months under a pseudonym, and initially denied his identity when he was ultimately arrested.   […]  [35] In R. v. Yusuf 2012 ONSC 21 (CanLII) , the accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter and failing to attend court. The accused had failed to appear in respect of his second degree murder charge prior to the trial being scheduled, or at least before it began.   […]  

    10.

    Canavan v. Feldman, 2004 CanLII 4787 (ON SC)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2004-07-23  |  27 pages  |  cited by 6 documents

    AI-generated

    The Court found a lawyer's misconduct, including misleading his client and the court, caused wrongful imprisonment. The client was awarded $200,000 in general damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, and $25,000 under the Family Law Act for the spouse's loss of companionship.

    Damages Professions and occupations

    Professional responsibility — Legal counsel misconduct — Breach of fiduciary duty — Lawyer failed to act in client’s best interests, misled client and court, and admitted guilt without client’s consent — Did the lawyer’s actions breach professional obligations, causing harm to the client? — Legal counsel’s duty of honesty and integrity toward clients and the courtTorts — Wrongful incarceration — General and aggravated damages — Plaintiff wrongfully imprisoned for 35 days due to lawyer’s misconduct — Did the plaintiff suffer compensable harm, including humiliation, distress, and loss of reputation? — Aggravating factors justify enhanced damages — $200,000 awarded for general and aggravated damagesTorts — Punitive damages — Lawyer’s high-handed and oppressive conduct — Misleading client and court, causing wrongful incarceration — Should punitive damages be awarded to punish and deter such misconduct? — $100,000 awarded for punitive damages to denounce and deter egregious professional misconductFamily — Family Law Act claim — Loss of care, guidance, and companionship — Plaintiff’s spouse suffered emotional distress and loss of companionship during wrongful incarceration — Is the spouse entitled to damages under the Family Law Act? — $25,000 awarded for loss of care, guidance, and companionshipObligations — Fiduciary duty — Lawyer-client relationship — Lawyer’s failure to fulfill obligations to client, including honesty, competence, and loyalty — Did the lawyer’s breach of fiduciary duty result in harm to the client? — Lawyer’s misconduct found to be the sole cause of the plaintiff’s harm

    Show more 

    […]   On December 24, 2002 Mr. Feldman advised Mr. Canavan that a new court date 2003 to pass the estate accounts had been scheduled for March 10, and that the previous court date had been cancelled to allow the beneficiaries’ counsel additional time to review the documentation.   […]  He was, at the time, waiting to appear as counsel on behalf of a client in Toronto. Although Mr. Bohm advised Mr. Feldman that he was to attend in Newmarket immediately, Mr. Feldman did not appear in Newmarket that day.   […]  

    11.

    R. v. Grant, 2018 ONSC 7260 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2018-12-11  |  9 pages  |  cited by 2 documents

    AI-generated

    The Court dismissed an application to stay proceedings for unreasonable delay under Section 11(b) of the Charter. Despite a four-year delay, the Court found most of it attributable to the defence's obstructionist conduct, leaving the net delay below the Jordan ceiling. No Charter breach occurred.

    Criminal or statutory infractions Defences Rights and freedoms

    Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b) — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Total delay of four years from charge to trial — Application of the Jordan framework — Does the delay exceed the presumptive ceiling of 30 months? — Defence-generated delay and waiver deducted from total delay — No violation of Section 11(b) found — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b)Criminal procedure — Delay — Defence delay — Obstructionist conduct — Applicant’s non-compliance with court processes, including failure to appear and refusal to cooperate with legal counsel — Whether applicant’s behaviour constitutes defence delay under Jordan — Defence delay attributed to applicant’s actions, including lawyer retention issues and adjournments — Framework from R. v. Jordan appliedCriminal procedure — Waiver of delay — Trial scheduling — Applicant’s decision to forego earlier trial dates — Whether waiver of delay was valid under Jordan — Waiver not quantified due to lack of specific earlier trial dates — Delay partially attributed to defence but not fully waived — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 11(b)Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b) — Reasonable time to trial — Whether applicant’s conduct and defence delay justify dismissal of Section 11(b) application — Defence failed to demonstrate that delay markedly exceeded reasonable time — Application dismissed under Jordan frameworkIndigenous peoples — Sovereign citizen claims — Jurisdiction — Applicant’s assertion of sovereign status and refusal to recognize court authority — Whether claims of sovereign citizen status have legal merit — Court held that such claims are frivolous and vexatious — Applicant subject to the same jurisdiction as any other accused person — No legal basis for sovereign citizen arguments

    Show more 

    […]   [14] It is perhaps not surprising that soon after this defiant appearance, on April 15, 2016, the applicant failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest.   […]  In the February to April, 2017 time period, on four occasions, the applicant announced he was hiring a new lawyer. On March 23, 2017, Mr. Phil Klumak, a very experienced criminal lawyer, appeared and stated that he had tried to get instructions from the applicant but had failed.   […]  

    12.

    The Regulatory Offence Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Choice Architecture of Regulatory Offences, 2024 CanLIIDocs 2514

    Terry Skolnik – Alberta Law Review

    58 pages

    presumption of innocence — moral fault — penalties — fines — impose

    Criminal or statutory infractions Evidence and procedure

    […]   may fail to attend court for various reasons, including that they forget their appearance date. 39 This omission can result in warrants, arrests, and additional criminal charges. 40 Some jurisdictions send text message reminders to defendants to appear in court to avoid bench warrants based on a failure to appear. 41   […]   IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE 53 to appear in court when required. 157 Barriers such as mental health problems, substance use disorder, and lack of access to counsel may also explain why they do not contest these fines. 158 Certain studies indicate that a significant portion of unhoused defendants miss their court dates. 159   […]

    13.

    Law Society of Ontario v Farahmand Borojeni, 2025 ONLSTH 163 (CanLII)

    Law Society Tribunal

    2025-11-03  |  17 pages

    unwitting dupe — interlocutory suspension — fraudulent — loan — risk

    […]   3. The respondent did not attend at a criminal trial with his client and did not properly assist his client in respect of the bench warrant that was issued for failing to attend.   […]   [63] As Mr. Farahmand’s practice is primarily family law, immigration law and criminal/quasi-criminal law, we also find reasonable grounds for believing that there is a significant risk of harm to the public interest in the administration of justice.   […]

    14.

    Sommer v. Goldi, 2022 ONSC 3830 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2022-06-27  |  15 pages  |  cited by 8 documents

    AI-generated

    The Court awarded $450,000 in damages and $24,119.64 in costs for a six-year campaign of internet defamation and harassment against a lawyer. The defendants, who refused to participate in proceedings, were found liable for defamation, with additional aggravated and punitive damages imposed due to their egregious conduct.

    Criminal or statutory infractions Damages Practice and procedure Torts

    Torts — Defamation — Internet defamation — Pleadings — Prolonged campaign of defamation and harassment by defendants against plaintiff, including allegations of conspiracy, fraud, and incompetence — Were the allegations of defamation pleaded with sufficient particularity to ground default judgment? — Pleadings deemed sufficient to establish liability due to defendants’ default — Defamation established where statements are “of and about” the plaintiff, published, and defamatory on their faceTorts — Damages — General damages — Aggravated damages — Punitive damages — Prolonged campaign of defamation and harassment by defendants — Plaintiff awarded $300,000 in general damages, $100,000 in aggravated damages, and $50,000 in punitive damages — Did the defendants’ conduct warrant aggravated and punitive damages? — Malicious intent, prolonged harm, and egregious conduct justified aggravated and punitive damagesCriminal procedure — Contempt of court — Bench warrant — Defendants’ refusal to comply with court orders and participate in proceedings — Should the defendants be held in contempt of court? — Contempt proceedings adjourned pending execution of bench warrant — Court emphasized the seriousness of defying court orders and the need for complianceCivil procedure — Anti-SLAPP motion — Procedural delays — Defendants’ failure to prosecute anti-SLAPP motion and comply with court orders — What are the procedural implications of the defendants’ conduct? — Defendants’ statements of defence struck out for non-compliance, and default judgment granted in favour of plaintiffCriminal procedure — Bench warrant enforcement — Law enforcement responsibilities — Police failure to execute bench warrant for over seven months — What are the responsibilities of law enforcement in executing a bench warrant? — Court directed police to report on efforts to enforce the warrant or attend a hearing to explain delays

    Show more 

    […]   COUNSEL: Jonathan Sommer self-represented (jsommer@sommers-law.ca) No one appearing for the defendants   […]  This requirement has been known to the Goldis since initial appearances were compelled by the court back in August 27, 2019. [44] In this court’s partial judgment on October 3 2021, the Goldis were ordered to appear before the court on December 3, 2021, failing which the court could issue a bench warrant to compel their   […]  

    15.

    R. v. Kayode, 2008 CanLII 64383 (ON SC)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2008-12-08  |  11 pages

    AI-generated

    Criminal or statutory infractions Rights and freedoms

    Criminal law — Defences — Charter of Rights section 11(b)

    […]   [34] Durno J. rescinded the warrant but expressed his concerns to Mr. Leslie as to why “anybody would create a false letterhead and put a lawyer on who either you or somebody working under your supervision knows isn’t even practicing criminal law anymore, that puts them on the record, I’m going to tell you, it makes no   […]   · The applicant failed to appear on one occasion and on several occasions appeared without counsel, thereby delaying the court’s ability to schedule a pre-trial and confirm the trial date;   […]

    16.

    R. v. Fiorillo, 2024 ONCJ 61 (CanLII)

    Ontario Court of Justice

    2024-02-01  |  13 pages

    AI-generated

    In a fraud case, the Court dismissed a Charter application asserting unreasonable delay, finding most delays attributed to the defence. The adjusted delay fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling under the Jordan framework, and no infringement of the accused's right to a timely trial was established.

    Criminal or statutory infractions Rights and freedoms

    Rights and freedoms — Charter rights — Trial within a reasonable time — Jordan framework — Whether net delay exceeds the 18‑month presumptive ceiling in the Ontario Court of Justice — Total delay calculated from swearing of Information to application hearing — Net delay found below presumptive ceiling after deductions — R. v. Jordan applied — No s. 11(b) breach established — Application dismissedRights and freedoms — Charter rights — Delay attribution and waiver — Whether defence delay and explicit 11(b) waivers must be deducted — Defence adjournment requests and failures to appear treated as defence delay — Express waivers from specified periods subtracted — R. v. Coulter and R. v. MacIsaac methodology followed — Net delay reduced accordingly — No infringement of s. 11(b)Rights and freedoms — Charter rights — Exceptional circumstances — COVID‑19 pandemic — Whether COVID‑19 justifies further deduction at this stage — Crown request for pandemic‑related deduction considered — Impact not fully realised without a set trial date — Deduction deferred with leave to renew — Exceptional circumstances not applied — No additional COVID‑19 deductionRights and freedoms — Charter remedies — Stay of proceedings — s. 24(1) — Whether a stay should issue absent a demonstrated breach of s. 11(b) — Jordan presumptive ceiling not exceeded on net delay — Defence delay and waivers determinative — No violation of right to be tried within a reasonable time — Stay of proceedings refused — Application dismissed

    Show more 

    […]   (s) Again, on January 5th, 2023, nobody appeared, and a bench warrant was issued for Mr. Fiorillo’s arrest. Mr. Geisinger appeared on February 2nd, 2023, and when Mr. Fiorillo eventually appeared counsel put on the record that they were still trying to resolve this matter and that an upcoming JPT date had been set.   […]  (u) On March 8th, 2023, Mr. Geisinger did not appear in JCMC Court, and at 6:00pm when the Court had completed its list, the matter was adjourned without counsel having appeared, with a discretionary bench warrant.   […]  

    17.

    Cellupica v. Di Giulio, 2010 ONSC 5839 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2010-11-12  |  24 pages  |  cited by 8 documents

    AI-generated

    The Court found the defendant in contempt for willfully failing to attend examinations and produce ordered financial documents, despite multiple opportunities and clear instructions. The defendant's non-compliance with court orders, including providing banking records, led to the issuance of an arrest warrant and further legal consequences.

    Criminal or statutory infractions Evidence Practice and procedure

    Civil procedure — Contempt of court — Breach of court orders — Defendant failed to attend examinations and produce documents as ordered — Did the defendant deliberately and willfully breach court orders, constituting contempt? — Test for contempt requires clear order, willful disobedience, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Defendant found in contempt for failing to comply with August 18, 2010, orderEvidence — Adequacy of notice — Contempt motion — Notice of motion must specify acts constituting contempt with sufficient particularity — Did the defendant receive adequate notice of the allegations of contempt? — Notice deemed sufficient when read with supporting affidavit — Standard for notice in contempt proceedingsConstitution — Systemic court failures — Access to justice — Court’s failure to provide clear information about courtroom locations — Did systemic failures contribute to the defendant’s failure to attend court? — Reasonable doubt raised about defendant’s non-attendance due to unclear courtroom information — Impact of systemic issues on contempt findings

    Show more 

    […]   It is now 11:15 am and he has failed to appear. I am satisfied that the defendant twice failed to attend for examination on October 7/09 + November 5/09.   […]  [20] On May 31 Mr. Di Giulio faxed plaintiffs’ counsel stating: I was informed today that my criminal charges pertaining to your client Italo Cellupica will not be pursued in the criminal court.   […]  

    18.

    R. v. Yusuf, 2012 ONSC 2421 (CanLII)

    Ontario Superior Court of Justice

    2012-05-15  |  16 pages  |  cited by 9 documents

    AI-generated

    The Court sentenced a young first-time offender to 7.5 years for unprovoked manslaughter and failing to appear in court, emphasiz


 
 
 

Comments

bottom of page