Arthur Alban Richard Ayers

The Minister sought judicial review of an Immigration Division decision releasing the respondent from immigration detention on conditions.

The respondent, who had a significant criminal record and a history of non-compliance, was ordered to reside at a halfway house and be supervised by three bondspersons.

The Minister argued the conditions were insufficient to mitigate flight risk and danger to the public, particularly challenging the suitability of the bondspersons, the lack of a current psychological assessment, and the upcoming end of the respondent's criminal sentence.

The Federal Court found the Immigration Division's decision reasonable, noting it had properly balanced the risk factors and imposed conditions as stringent as a prior release plan.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

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.

The applicant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to maintain his rent-geared-to-income housing subsidy pending the outcome of his application for judicial review.

The respondent municipality had terminated the subsidy because the applicant failed to report changes to his income within the required 30-day period.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as his fears of eviction were speculative and any financial loss could be compensated in damages.

The balance of convenience favoured the municipality, which had a long waiting list for social housing.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion for an interlocutory injunction to maintain his rent-geared-to-income subsidy pending the hearing of his application for judicial review.

The respondent municipality had terminated the subsidy because the applicant failed to report changes in his income.

Applying the RJR MacDonald test, the court found that while there was a serious issue to be tried, the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm, as his fears of eviction were speculative and financial losses could be compensated.

The balance of convenience favoured the municipality, which had a long waiting list for subsidized housing.

The motion was dismissed.

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.

The proposed defendant, having successfully defended a motion by the plaintiffs to add him as a party after the limitation period expired, sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,910.28.

The plaintiffs argued for nominal costs.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $6,082.64, finding the proceeding was not complex but of significant importance to the proposed defendant.

The court declined to order costs jointly and severally against the plaintiffs' principal, as no evidence was presented to justify such an exceptional order.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Prior to the trial, the deputy judge solicited and received a charitable donation from the paralegal firm representing the respondent, which he failed to disclose to the appellant.

The Divisional Court found that an informed person viewing the matter realistically and practically would conclude that the judge would not decide fairly.

The appeal was allowed, the trial decision was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.