In 2011, the Province rejected aspects of the compensation recommendations for Provincial Court judges in a report of the 2010 Judges’ Compensation Commission (”JCC”) . There are three recommendations at issue on appeal: salary, pension accrual rate and pension contribution period. Held: per Chiasson and Frankel JJ.A., appeal allowed.. Per Harris J.A. dissenting, would have dismissed the appeal: Setting aside the Legislature’s motion and declaring that the Provincial Court judges are entitled to the JCC recommendations, encroaches on the jurisdiction of government and the Legislature to allocate public resources from the public purse.
Justice Darla A. Wilson's errors cost people $17,500 and result in new trial. The fact that someone signs a waiver does not mean they can't sue. On June 1, 2008, over 12,000 cyclists took to the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto for a charity bicycle ride to benefit the Heart and Stroke Foundation. As the ride progressed, two groups of cyclists formed at the front, with the first group slightly ahead of the second. Wanting to join the first group, the Plaintiff approached the Defendant's left side. Suddenly, the Defendant swerved to the left, clipping the Plaintiff's front wheel with his back wheel. Judge Wilson struck the jury notice and discharged the jury. The judge reasoned that the jury would be confused by the implications of a waiver the Plaintiff had signed before entering the ride
For the reasons that follow, I conclude that, when considered cumulatively, the trial judge Justice P. Theodore Matlow of the Superior Court of Justice’s conduct of the trial creates an appearance that he prejudged Faraci’s conduct and credibility and aligned himself with the respondents on the issue of mid-trial production in a manner that rendered the trial unfair.
On December 9, 2005 the Ontario Judicial Council conducted a hearing in respect of a complaint by the Criminal Lawyers’ Association that the Honourable Justice Norman Douglas conducted himself in a manner incompatible with the duties of his office. The particulars of the complaint are contained in Appendix “A” to these reasons.
IN THE MATTER OF a complaint respecting the Honourable Madam Justice Dianne Nicholas.The panel is satisfied that Justice Nicholas has completely accepted the seriousness of her misconduct and would appreciate that any repetition could attract a more serious disposition.