Gladue principles do not trump other sentencing criteria

R. v. Killiktee, 2013 ONCA 332 holds that Gladue principles are factors but not necessarily dispositive factors in sentencing:

[3]          Further, in our opinion, the sentencing judge gave proper effect to Gladue principles.  Her reasons demonstrate great sensitivity to them.  She held, however, that while rehabilitative and Gladue objectives must inform a fit sentence, they do not automatically trump other sentencing objectives.  The sentencing judge recognized that a fit sentence must meet rehabilitative goals but that in this case public safety was paramount. We see no error in principle in her reasons and the sentence she imposed was fit.

Panda in a tree

Dancing panda

Fiduciary duty

The Toronto Party v. Toronto (City), 2013 ONCA 327 discusses how fiduciary duties arise:

[37]       The concept of fiduciary obligation has a venerable lineage rooted in the notion of breach of confidence, an original head of jurisdiction in Chancery: Guérin v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 335, at p. 383. Where by statute, agreement, or perhaps by unilateral undertaking, one party has an obligation to act for the benefit of another and that obligation carries with it a discretionary power, the party thus empowered becomes a fiduciary. Equity intervenes to supervise the relationship by holding the fiduciary to a strict standard of conduct:Guérin, at p. 384.

[38]       The standard categories of agent, trustee, partner, director, and the like do not establish and exhaust the nature of the fiduciary relationships. It is, after all, the nature of the relationship, not the specific category of actor involved that gives rise to the fiduciary duty. The categories of fiduciary are not closed:Guérin, at p. 384.

[39]       Fiduciary duties generally arise only in connection with obligations originating in a private law context. Public law duties, the performance of which commands the exercise of discretion, do not typically give rise to a fiduciary relationship: Guérin, at p. 384.

Need more sleeps

Release of monies seized under civil remedy legislation so as to retain counsel

In AG v $104,877 US, 2013 ONSC 2955, just released, Justice Perell allowed monies to be released from funds seized and preserved under the civil remedies legislation to allow civil counsel to be retained. Civil counsel (not myself) will now be retained to dispute the seizure.

Apparently this is the first time monies have been released in this way. The decision is careful and sets out the necessary standard. I expect it will be released on line soon but I have a copy now for anyone who needs it.