Alex Alton

The applicant church sought $75,000 in costs after being unsuccessful on an urgent application for an interim injunction to stay COVID-19 restrictions on in-person religious services.

The church argued costs were warranted because the case raised a novel issue of significant public importance.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the injunction application focused on the narrow interests of the church rather than broad public interest, and turned on settled legal principles rather than novel issues.

No costs were awarded to either party for the injunction application.

The accused, Adib Ibrahim, was found guilty of manslaughter after intentionally driving his taxi into a skateboarder, Ralph Bissonnette, causing his death.

This decision addresses the sentencing.

The Crown sought a four-year penitentiary term, DNA order, weapons prohibition, and driving prohibition.

The defence requested a conditional sentence, citing the accused's lack of criminal record, family support, health issues, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation, finding a high degree of moral blameworthiness due to the intentional aggressive act.

The accused was sentenced to 3 years and 11 months incarceration, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

A further driving prohibition was declined given existing bail conditions and the term of incarceration.

The applicant church sought an interim injunction to exempt it from O. Reg. 82/20, which restricted religious gatherings to a maximum of ten people in regions designated as Stage 1 during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The church argued the regulation infringed its freedom of religion under s. 2(a) of the Charter.

Applying the RJR-MacDonald test, the court found that the church established a serious issue to be tried and irreparable harm.

However, the court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured the respondent, as the public interest in protecting health and preventing the spread of COVID-19 outweighed the temporary restriction on the church's religious freedom.

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with manslaughter following a fatal collision with a longboarder.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally veered into the victim in a fit of road rage, while the accused claimed he was unaware of the victim's presence and the collision resulted from a momentary lapse of attention or a mechanical 'bump steer'.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding that he intentionally steered his taxi into the curb lane knowing the victim was beside him.

The court concluded this conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person, finding the accused guilty of manslaughter based on the unlawful acts of assault and dangerous driving.

The defendant, Michael Elaschuk, brought a motion to strike the plaintiff, Jade Thelwell's, claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, unlawful act conspiracy, and defamation, arguing it disclosed no reasonable cause of action and constituted an abuse of process under Rules 21.01 and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court found that while the plaintiff's motivations were mixed, the action itself did not constitute an abuse of process sufficient for dismissal, especially as it was the only current claim against Elaschuk.

However, the specific pleadings for intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy, and defamation against Elaschuk were struck due to lack of specificity regarding intent, agreement, and particular defamatory statements, respectively.

Leave to amend these pleadings was granted, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay costs to Elaschuk.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim but subsequently abandoned and withdrew it.

The self-represented defendant and the proposed defendant, who had retained counsel, both sought costs of $1,000 for the abandoned motion.

The court awarded costs of $750 to the proposed defendant and $500 to the defendant, payable by the plaintiff within 30 days.

The plaintiff, L.A.K.E.S Leasing Corporation, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a deficiency balance on the sale of a repossessed leased Mack Dump Truck.

The defendants opposed, arguing the motion was premature and unnecessary, and disputed the quantum of damages.

The court granted partial summary judgment on liability, finding the defendants contractually liable for costs and expenses related to the lease default and repossession based on the lease agreement, general security agreement, and consent to take possession.

However, the court denied summary judgment on damages, concluding that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient detailed breakdown and supporting documentation for the claimed arrears and expenses, particularly regarding work done by subsidiary companies and the reasonableness of those charges.

The issue of damages was referred to be determined by the usual Simplified Rules procedure.