2 total
The court ordered parties to share summary judgment costs equally due to divided success and mutual unreasonableness.
This is a costs ruling following a summary judgment motion in a family law dispute concerning property valuations and equalization.
The applicant sought $16,203 in costs, while the self-represented respondent sought $12,807.
The court found that both parties contributed to the procedural impasse and the need for the motion, with the respondent's delayed and inadequate disclosure and the applicant's over-reaching valuation claims.
Emphasizing the importance of timely disclosure and rational litigation conduct, the court ordered the parties to share the costs of the motion equally.
The applicant was awarded fixed costs of $8,060 against the respondent.
Accused convicted of multiple domestic assaults, threats, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement.
The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from a series of alleged domestic assaults against his spouse over a two‑year period, including assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats to cause death, sexual assault, and unlawful confinement.
The case turned primarily on credibility assessments between the complainant and the accused, with supporting testimony from a family member and a community counsellor, as well as medical and documentary evidence.
The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) in assessing the accused’s testimony and emphasized that the burden of proof remained on the Crown.
After rejecting the accused’s evidence as not credible and accepting the complainant’s evidence as reliable and internally consistent, the court found the Crown had proven each count beyond a reasonable doubt.
