2 total
Motion for security for costs dismissed as corporate plaintiff established impecuniosity and claim not devoid of merit.
The defendant brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff in a commercial lease dispute.
The plaintiff conceded it had insufficient assets, satisfying the defendant's initial onus under Rule 56.01(1)(d).
The court found the plaintiff met the high threshold to demonstrate impecuniosity, as its sole shareholder's only income was ODSP and the business had failed.
The court also found the plaintiff's claim was not plainly devoid of merit, given evidence of alleged breaches of the lease by the defendant.
The motion for security for costs was dismissed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff in the cause.
Material benefit conviction entered; trafficking and procuring charges failed.
Following a judge-alone criminal trial arising from an intimate relationship involving sex trade activity, drug use, assault allegations, and probation breaches, the court applied the W.D. framework to assess conflicting testimony from the complainant and the accused.
The court rejected the defence request for a Vetrovec caution and held that no similar fact application was required because the assault evidence formed part of the alleged pattern of control, direction or influence relevant to the prostitution-related counts.
The accused was acquitted of sexual assault, exploitation, and procuring, but convicted of receiving a material benefit from sexual services, one assault limited to the hallway incident on February 4, 2018, and three breach of probation counts based on guilty pleas.
The court held that the parties were not in a legitimate living arrangement under s. 286.2(4)(a), characterizing the relationship as parasitic for purposes of the material benefit offence.
