Adjurned to Thursday, January 24, 2008
Why: Defence Counsel was unclear of date the charge was laid - they requested the Crown Attorney to step in and meet with all parties to determine dates (This Crown meeting will be on January 16, 2008)
Today I went into court expecting to hear a plead from the Society. However, in the back of my mind, I knew something was probably going to surface. What did happen however surprised me. An expectation I had several months ago began to transpire.
I arrived at the court and was contacted by the Provincial Prosecutor at the Court house who informed me that Counsel for the defendants (their Exec. Dir) was concerned that I had not filed the information (the charge) within the legal six months from the time the Offence was committed.
I was, at first taken-aback but soon realized that I had already covered this issue from the beginning by ensuring that the charge was laid within legal limit of six months from the date the actual Offence was committed.
The request was filed with the Society on February 05, 2007. They had ten days to comply with the request before they would be in a position of having commited the Offence of contravening section 307 (5) of the Corporations Act. (Failing to provide the list of members of the Society as required by section 307 (1))
This means that they had to provide the list any time up to and including Thursday, February 15th, 2007 or, in other words prior to Friday, February 16th, 2007 in order to prevent themselves from committing the Offence.
Instead they intentionally retained a lawyer in order to assist them in committing the Offence by having Counsel write a letter to me dated February 14th, 2007 stating that they will not provide the list to me. (therefore demonstrating that they were going to commit the Offence). This letter was written just two days short of the date the Offence would officially have been deemed to have been commited. (Feb. 16th, 2007)
In this letter, three assumptions were made as "reasons" for not furnishing the list to me stating that I was not going to use the list for legal purposes and that they could not provide the list to me due to provisions of the Federal Privacy legislation (PIPEDA) which actually does only applies to commercial businesses or undertakings not exclusively legislated, non-profit organizations -- which is what the Society is.
I have since obtained a letter from the Federal Privacy Commission stating that the Act does not apply to the Society.
So anyhow, this is a strict liability Offence which only affords them the defences of Due Dilligence and Mistake of Fact. Neither of which apply in this case. Therefore there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and a public interest in this prosecution since the lives of children in foster care in Ontario are affected by decisions made by the Society and they are blocking the membership from being informed of important issues of interest to the members which will only be brought to their attention via concerned members of the community who have attempted to become a member but who have had their membership applications denied by the Board due to what can only be assumed to be political reasons.
Please contact me at 613-228-2178 for more information:
Cases which can be reviewed and which won on appeal are located at
First Related Case Law -- Unsuccessful on Trial but was successful on appeal
Lawrence v. Toronto Humane Society, 2005 CanLII 25634 (ON S.C.)
Winning Appeal of same case
Lawrence v. Toronto Humane Society, 2006 CanLII 20224 (ON C.A.)
Disposition of appeal case:
 Accordingly, I would allow the appeal, set aside paragraphs one and two of the application judge’s judgment and substitute in their stead an order that Lawrence is entitled to receive a copy of the Society’s membership list as at September 30, 2004, in the form set out in s. 307(1) of the Act, within ten days from the date of this decision.
 Lawrence is entitled to his costs of the application, in the amount of $18,000 as fixed by the application judge, if sought. He is also entitled to his costs of this appeal on a partial indemnity basis, fixed in the total amount of $8,500, also if sought.
RELEASED: “JMS” June 16, 2006
“E.A. Cronk J.A.”
“I agree. J.M. Simmons J.A.”
“I agree. P.S. Rouleau J.A
Next Relevant Case Law
Rodgers v. Calvert, 2004 CanLII 22082 (ON S.C.)
 An order shall go directing the Association through its proper officers to produce and deliver forthwith to the applicant a list of the members of the Association in accordance with the provisions of s.307 of the Act.
 The motion raises a novel point of law. Both parties through their counsel have attempted to address the issues and have done so in a thorough manner. In the circumstances, I am of the view that each party should bear his/their own costs.
Ontario Advocate Larabee Raising Issues From Foster Care - An Ontario Advocate and Survivor of abuse and neglect in foster care requested I post the following links however I also wanted to post a link to Larabee's...
4 years ago