I do not criticize the responding party for any unethical conduct. It is an appropriate and recognized effort to examine and test legislation that governs the conduct of a particular enterprise. Where there is apparent conflict between the enterprise and the governing legislation, it is common place and not inappropriate to attempt to bring the enterprise into compliance with the legislation. Frequently this involves creative, out-of-the-box thinking by entrepreneurs and their legal advisors. The present effort was genuine and inventive, but ultimately the plaintiff relies on a distinction without a difference.

The activity is one that many would enjoy and it is not unethical for an individual to create a business that would meet the demands of those who enjoy the activity. This court makes no comment whether hunting animals in captivity should be permitted or not.

However, the legislators enacted the FWCA which is remedial legislation with a purpose. It was the legislators' purpose to prohibit the hunting of elk et al. in captivity. I have found, on the facts put forward by the responding party, that the activity whatever it is called and whether or not it is proceeded by the sale of the animal in advance of its "harvest", the activity remains a "hunt". That is why people want to do it. That is why they pay to do it rather than being paid for harvesting on behalf of a farmer.

Nor, does Rule 52.03 of the Rules of Court under which Dr. Dumais's medical report was admitted assist the Plaintiff. This Rule procedurally facilitates the admission of evidence of medical practitioners for pragmatic reasons related to resources, time and costs. It does not cloak the contents from all the laws of evidence.

In commenting on the absence of admissible evidence, the Court recognizes, of course, that evidence need not always be explicit; reasonable inference can be drawn from proven facts. It is quite another matter, however, to make assumptions as a substitute for evidentiary gaps. With due respect for the contrary argument advanced, on the record here the Court is being asked to simply accept as a circumstantial leap of logic, not evidence, that "but for" a broken finger the plaintiff would probably not be in her present condition. The Court cannot leap that far. This is not a remoteness of damage issue. It is a proof of damage issue.

Il s'ensuit que la décision du juge de « retirer » le plaidoyer est dénuée de tout fondement juridique. À mon avis, elle rejoint la catégorie des décisions arbitraires et capricieuses que la règle de la primauté du droit proscrit. Disons-le clairement: la décision d’écarter le plaidoyer de culpabilité et de mettre un terme à la poursuite constitue une entorse aux normes les plus élémentaires de conduite judiciaire, normes que tout juge, même le plus inexpérimenté et mal renseigné, est censé connaître et est tenu de respecter. Le serment d'office du juge est de rendre justice selon le droit et la décision frappée d’appel n'est aucunement conforme à cet engagement solennel. Il est dans la nature humaine de se tromper. En définitive, ce qui importe c’est la leçon que l’on tire de l’erreur commise.    

The appellant has attempted to distinguish the factual situation in this case from that in Renfroe v. Higgins Rack Coating and Manufacturing Co., Inc. (1969), 17 Mich.App. 259, 169 N.W.2d 326. He didn't. We couldn't.

Marisa, it is clear that both of your parents love you very much.  They both want to be there for you.  And – and this is the thing about love Marisa – they both need you to be there for them too.  You have a role to play here.  It’s okay for you to love both your mother and your father.  The love you have for your father does not take away from your love for your mother.  And the love you have for your mother does not take anything away from your love for your father.  Love is not some small thing, like a monthly allowance, that has to be spent carefully and can easily run out.  Love is like the air that we breathe, Marisa: it is everywhere, and there is plenty of it to go around for all the people we love.  You don’t have to choose between your mother and your father.  You can choose both of them.  You should choose both of them.

As I read George, and while the terms are certainly not used interchangeably, surrounding pleadings were struck for the use of innuendo, argument, conclusions, and “inflammatory” language.  I say this to make the point that pleadings are not restricted to the dull greys of formulaic prose.  A little poetry or colour is not necessarily a bad thing.  The question is: do the phrases used take such liberties that they go beyond informing the other party, to the extent of becoming inflammatory or prejudicial?  In this case I think not.  I take “shattered” to be reasonably synonymous with “broke”, or “failed” and unlikely to mislead a fact-finder.  Similarly, while “launching” may be, as the defendants argue, more colourful than “propelling”, or “throwing”, it does not offend.

Mr. Venditello has proved himself a veritable virtuoso at exploiting the fervent desire of the justice system to facilitate his right to counsel to create delay for his own ends.  In the interim, the main complainant has fallen ill and died.  Even a peremptory “with or without counsel” trial date was not proof against the stratagems of this defendant who, thus far, has avoided trial with all the determination of a cat fleeing a bath.

The court in Jordan sought to change a culture of complacency not gullibility.  The latter may well need addressing as well, but only in an Alice in Wonderland world can the pursuit of justice be advanced by its denial.  The Charter will not long stand as a publicly-cherished bulwark of fundamental rights and freedoms if it is permitted to be exploited and indeed perverted to secure ends utterly disconnected from those of justice. 

Closing argument was in writing: an eye-glazing, bum-numbing, disc-herniating total of 662 pages (single-spaced, medium-sized font and heavily footnoted). Then there were the answers to dozens of written questions that I forwarded to counsel in the course of preparing these Reasons. It was a superb effort.

The trial was like a physical deformity that one, eventually, accepts as a permanent condition. Yet, despite everything, I will recall the experience fondly because of the unrelenting civility of counsel and their unceasing mastery of the evidence, all under difficult circumstances.

But perhaps more important is the fact I do not see Smoczyneski’s evidence as being necessary. Zuber has testified and presented his case on his wage loss. I have to assess the credibility of that evidence and will still have to decide what his earning capacity was pre and post-accident. In short, Zuber’s claim for past and future wage loss will be for me to decide, not Smoczyneski. 

Third, even if the provisions of rules 30.10 and 31.10 could have been satisfied in the immediate case, which is far from certain, the Plaintiffs circumvented the jurisprudence about class action procedure. Under class action procedure, the availability and the use of evidence, compelled or otherwise, that goes to the merits of the plaintiff’s claim pre-certification is strictly limited and temporarily regulated. This is not a small matter in the theory and methodology of class actions; a great deal of byzantine argument has been made and jurisprudential blood spilt over the battleground of the gatekeeping role and scope of the certification motion and about when the merits, as opposed to the procedure, of a class action should be the focus of the parties’ and the court’s attention. The Plaintiffs circumvented this class action jurisprudence. 

I made a fuss. I told them to stop wasting money. So they settled. 

But why do we have a system in which so much tax money gets wasted, unless someone takes the time to make a fuss? 

Hal Lancaster, the recently retired Wall Street Journal editor, bureau chief, and columnist of 30 years has observed that, “Getting fired is nature’s way of telling you that you had the wrong job in the first place.”

The British essayist, Samuel Johnson (1709-1784), also commented that “the excesses of hope must be expiated by pain, and expectations improperly indulged must end in disappointment.”

At bottom the case at bar is the spawn of a turf war between the provincial government and the teachers’ union.  The prize in that war is control of the College of Teachers.

The stench of power politics is a miasma that emanates from the mound of materials placed before me in this case.  The language of war and the making of peace (“the holding out of an olive branch”) even entered the courtroom.

I make it clear that the court is not blind to reality.  But fundamental to the Rule of Law is the need for a judge in a case such as this to deal only with the justiciable issue and take from the materials only that which is of interest as a matter of law.  And ignore the rest.  This I have done.

I would like to make one parting comment.  I have been challenged by this case.  It is not because of the complexity of the legal issues posed by the charges although I admit that they were not always easy.  I have been challenged because this young man was clearly up to no good.  In the particular circumstances of this case, the line between criminal liability and a reprehensible anti-social attitude was a fine one. It is sometimes seductive to convict and punish someone for being a “bad” person.  Especially when that person came so close to committing the offences for which he was charged. However, that fine line remains a bright line.  That line is a fundamental one.  It marks the boundary between a finding of guilt and the presumption of innocence.  Our criminal justice system depends upon impartial and dispassionate judges who are not swayed by any result-oriented thinking, doing their best in drawing that line correctly.

I have tried to do so in this case.

Typical of the bizarre procedural history of this seven-year-old action between a client and his former lawyers, the immediate motion presents the procedurally rare-as-hen’s-teeth phenomena that, practically speaking, it ultimately does not much matter whether I grant or dismiss the motion. Regardless of whether I grant the motion or dismiss the motion, the genuinely important issue that underlies the immediate motion, which is a meta-motion, a motion about another motion, will remain to be determined. Practically speaking, the meta-motion is dysfunctional in the bringing of it and in the resisting of it. 

On observing the area of her fall, the plaintiff noted a dark and slimy stain in the shape of a banana peel.  The actual peel itself had moved as the plaintiff stepped on it.  The banana peel was black and this prompted the plaintiff (with no professed expertise in the matter of the rate of decomposition of bananas) to estimate that the peel had been in the parking lot for more than two days.

Nick Angelis had a problem. He wanted the best. For himself and for his family. But he couldn’t afford the lifestyle he coveted. He hit upon a solution. Money was available. From different sources. At different times. So he took it. All it required was some deceit, a bit of fraud and a few other dishonest means.

But Nick Angelis got caught. And despite that, he did it again. Repeatedly. Even while on bail. Mea culpa, Nick said. A judge agreed. He sent Nick Angelis to the penitentiary. Ordered that he pay restitution for some of his victims, but not others.

Every person knows that his or her child will on occasion become ill or be injured. An illness can arise or an accident happen anywhere — at home, in school, at a friend’s house, on a playground, at ballet or band or hockey practice. Usually, the illness or injury occurs naturally or accidentally; no one else is at fault.

Occasionally, however, a child becomes ill or is injured through someone else’s fault, even negligence. When that happens, inevitably parents are called to the scene (if they are not already present) and they must deal with the situation they face. Fortunately, most of the situations parents face are fairly ordinary — the child has fallen off a swing in the schoolyard and has a bump on her head and a scrape or cut on her knee. Sadly, on a few occasions the situation parents must face is horrific — their child is dead or seriously injured.

After a busy day conducting illegal drug transactions, the plaintiff, the defendant and a mutual friend stopped at a corner store where the defendant purchased some “scratch” lottery tickets. One of the tickets proved to be a $5-million winner.

The parties dispute ownership of the winning ticket. If the ticket were a child and the parties vying for custody, I would find them both unfit and bring in Family and Children’s Services.

The case is awash in untruths and curiosities. It is a study in good fortune squandered and generosity abused.

During this trial, truth was only an occasional visitor. 

This motion should have been brought before a Master, given the mandatory language of Rule 37.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.  It was not.  I refrained from adjourning the motion on the spot to be brought back before a Master only because the material I had by then read was so replete with improper attempts by both sides to introduce scandalous and extraneous allegations that I concluded it would be unfair to inflict such a hash of smoke and distractions upon my over-worked colleagues afresh when my list happened to have enough time available to deal with this motion.  None should presume to try their luck at obtaining such license in future.