Arthur Alban Richard Ayers

A foreign national subject to a removal order was convicted of making, distributing, and possessing child pornography after CBSA officers discovered explicit images of her children on her cell phone during a search incident to arrest.

The appellant appealed her conviction on five grounds, including Charter breaches related to the cell phone search, the reasonableness of the verdict, misapprehension of evidence, and reasonable apprehension of bias.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the CBSA search was authorized under section 16(3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, that the evidence was admissible under section 24(2) of the Charter, and that the verdict was reasonable on the evidence.

The court also rejected claims of bias.

On sentencing, the court set aside the victim surcharge but otherwise upheld the sentence.

This is a costs decision following a motion where the applicant's request for injunctive relief was denied, though an order for preservation of evidence was made.

The respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the respondent, finding the applicant's attempt to bring the initial motion ex parte inappropriate and unjustified, especially given prior negotiations between counsel.

The relief sought by the applicant was deemed overly broad and an unwarranted intrusion into the respondent's operations.

The applicant's procedure was characterized as ill-conceived and unjustified, leading to significant legal expenses for both parties.

A litigation guardian, acting as attorney for personal care and property, brought a motion for a mandatory injunction seeking unrestricted access to a patient and non-interference with video cameras installed in the patient's hospital room.

The court dismissed the motion for injunctive relief, finding that the three-part test for interlocutory injunctions was not met, particularly regarding irreparable harm and the balance of convenience.

However, the court granted an order for the maintenance, control, preservation, and disclosure of video records under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, recognizing the need to preserve evidence in the ongoing dispute concerning the patient's care.

This is an appeal from a Master's order requiring an extra-jurisdictional examination of a plaintiff and awarding costs.

The plaintiffs appealed the order for examination and the costs award.

The court upheld the Master's decision, finding that the Master applied the correct test for extra-jurisdictional examinations, provided sufficient reasons, and did not misapprehend the evidence.

The appeal regarding costs was dismissed because leave to appeal was not sought, with the possibility for the plaintiffs to bring a separate motion for leave.

Costs of the appeal were awarded to the defendants.