A. Lee

The defendant was found asleep in the driver's seat of a running vehicle with missing front tires and damaged rims at 1:53 AM on a roadway.

Police arrested him for impaired care or control and made a breath demand.

The defendant's breath samples registered over 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

The defendant was charged with both Over 80 and Impaired Care or Control and challenged the constitutionality of the arrest and breath demand on multiple Charter grounds.

The court found no Charter violations and convicted the defendant on both counts, finding that the officer had reasonable grounds for the arrest and that the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

The plaintiff sought costs of $5,379.80 on a partial indemnity scale following a motion to compel answers to undertakings and refusals.

The defendant argued no costs should be awarded due to divided success, as the plaintiff only obtained orders for 10 of the 27 undertakings and refusals argued.

The court found that while success was divided, the motion was necessary to compel compliance and the defendant had taken an improper position regarding access to its records.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs fixed at $2,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The applicant husband sought an order for the respondent wife to undergo a capacity assessment due to concerns about her mental well-being and its impact on her parenting and participation in the proceedings.

The wife admitted to a delusional disorder but argued it did not impair her judgment.

The court granted the order for a capacity assessment under both s. 105 of the Courts of Justice Act and s. 79 of the Substitute Decisions Act, finding reasonable grounds to believe her capacity was in question and relevant to material parenting issues.

The court also extended interim sole custody to the husband and dispensed with the wife's consent for medical treatment for their child, while requiring the husband to keep the wife informed and consult her.

This decision addresses four motions in consolidated construction lien actions.

Lien claimants Vestacon Limited and Plan Group Inc. sought to validate their liens against properties owned by 1302207 Ontario Limited (Peter Co.) and 364 Richmond Street West Inc. (Richmond Co.), following the bankruptcy of the tenant, Arc Productions Ltd. The court declared all three Certificates of Substantial Performance (CSPs) invalid due to premature issuance and insufficient property descriptions.

Consequently, Vestacon's lien was found to be timely, having been registered within 45 days of contract completion.

The court also affirmed the validity of Vestacon's Section 19 notices to the landlords, establishing their liability.

Furthermore, Vestacon's lien was extended to include the 364 Richmond Street West property, and leave was granted to add Richmond Co. as a defendant.

For Plan Group's lien, while the CSPs were invalid, a genuine issue for trial was found regarding the exact date of last supply, leading to the dismissal of the owners' motion to declare Plan Group's lien expired.

In a civil jury trial, the plaintiff brought a motion seeking to question sworn jurors for potential bias relating to abortion after the jury panel had already been selected and sworn.

The plaintiff relied on survey evidence suggesting Canadians hold strong views on abortion and argued that questioning jurors was necessary to identify potential prejudice.

The court held that civil juries are presumed capable of setting aside personal views through the trial process and judicial instructions, and that there was insufficient evidence of widespread bias that would justify such questioning.

The court emphasized the discretionary nature of challenges for cause in civil proceedings and warned that permitting such questioning could create delays and open the floodgates to inquiries on many personal characteristics.

The motion was dismissed.