Barnes

The appellant brought a motion to reopen a final judgment based on fresh evidence, specifically a document ('exhibit H') purporting to show the correct zoning for his property, which would resolve a dispute over a revoked building permit.

The court found it had jurisdiction to reopen the case under Rule 59.06(2)(a) to prevent a miscarriage of justice, despite the appellant's lack of reasonable diligence in bringing the document forward.

However, after reviewing the evidence, the court concluded that exhibit H was not an authentic document.

The motion to alter the previous judgment was dismissed, and the original remediation timetable remained in effect.

During a trial for attempted murder, the Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, specifically his alleged membership in a street gang called the 'Clean Up Crew'.

The Crown argued this evidence was necessary to establish motive and animus, as the shooting was allegedly ordered by a gang leader.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the evidence was highly probative of motive, its prejudicial effect—the risk that the jury would convict based on gang membership alone—outweighed its probative value.

The Crown was permitted to lead evidence of the relationship between the parties without referencing gang affiliations.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 1999 child support order, arguing his income had significantly decreased following a 2009 motor vehicle accident and that his two adult daughters were no longer children of the marriage.

The respondent mother sought ongoing child support and section 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances and varied the child support order.

The court determined the older daughter ceased to be a child of the marriage in 2011, but the younger daughter remained a child of the marriage due to chronic illness and disability.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive section 7 expenses for the older daughter (offset by a child support overpayment) and ongoing child support and section 7 expenses for the younger daughter, to be funded from his long-term disability settlement.

The applicant municipality sought an order under s. 440 of the Municipal Act to restrain the respondent from using her property as a short-term rental, arguing it constituted an illegal 'Tourist Establishment' under the zoning by-law.

The respondent brought a counter-application seeking a declaration that her use was permitted or that the by-law was unacceptably vague and ultra vires.

The court found that the by-law did not clearly regulate short-term use in the Resort Residential zone and that, by attempting to regulate the identity of the users rather than the use of the land, it was ultra vires the Planning Act.

The municipality's application was dismissed and the by-law was declared of no force and effect to the extent it purported to regulate short-term rentals.

The parties separated in 2011 after a 12-year marriage.

The applicant sought equalization of net family property and the sale of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought spousal support.

The court determined the value of various disputed assets and liabilities to calculate net family property, ultimately ordering the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $8,053.25 after accounting for post-separation credits.

The court dismissed the respondent's claim for spousal support, finding no entitlement under the Bracklow criteria.

Finally, the court ordered the partition and sale of the matrimonial home, dispensing with the respondent's consent due to his reluctance to sell.

The applicant sought spousal support and a declaration of an interest in a residential property following the breakdown of her relationship with the respondent.

The court found that the parties were common law spouses who cohabited for over 11 years.

The applicant was awarded non-compensatory spousal support due to her inability to work following a bipolar disorder diagnosis.

The court also found that the respondent was unjustly enriched by the applicant's contributions to the maintenance and preservation of the property, awarding her monetary compensation for her share of the joint family venture.

The applicant, charged with drug offences following the execution of a telewarrant at his residence, sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiant of the Information to Obtain (ITO).

The applicant argued that cross-examination was necessary to challenge the reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant, specifically regarding the urgency of the telewarrant, the need for a night-time search, and the reliability of confidential informants.

The court applied the Garofoli test and granted leave to cross-examine the affiant, but restricted the scope to specific areas including when the affiant learned the applicant's name, the basis for describing the applicant as having a violent record and multiple firearms, and the failure to disclose a linked vehicle.

The applicant mother sought an order requiring the respondent father to pay his proportionate share of child care expenses for services provided by the maternal grandmother.

The father opposed paying for care provided by a family member and sought increased access.

The court applied the principles from McLaughlin, finding that because the grandmother had foregone employment to care for the children and her dominant activity during the mother's working hours was child care, she was entitled to remuneration.

The father was ordered to pay his proportionate share of the grandmother's discounted weekly rate.

The father's request for increased access was dismissed as a recent order already provided alternate weekend overnight access.

The mother brought a motion for sole custody of the parties' three-year-old child, while the father sought joint custody.

The court found that both parties were good parents but were unable to communicate or make joint decisions.

To ensure both parents remained fully involved in the child's life, the court ordered joint custody with a parallel parenting arrangement, granting the father primary responsibility for educational decisions and the mother primary responsibility for all other decisions.

The child's primary residence was ordered to remain with the mother, and an access schedule was established for the father.

The applicant, an absentee landlord living in Qatar, sought to reverse clean-up costs assessed against his property by the respondent municipality after a clandestine drug lab operated by his tenants caused a fire.

The municipality relied on a by-law prohibiting the use of property for the manufacture of controlled substances.

The court held that the by-law is a strict liability public welfare provision that does not require the owner to have actual knowledge of the prohibited activity.

The court found the municipality's decision to assess costs against the applicant was reasonable and that failing to do so would result in the applicant's unjust enrichment.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiff, a self-represented litigant, brought an action against the Crown and Canada Revenue Agency employees, arguing that as a 'human being' rather than a 'person', the Income Tax Act did not apply to her.

She sought the return of ten years of taxes and damages, and asserted the defendants should be noted in default.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the Statement of Claim.

The court found the defendants were not in default, as the plaintiff failed to comply with the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act requirements for default judgments against the Crown.

The court granted the defendants' motion to strike the claim without leave to amend, finding the plaintiff's pseudolegal arguments had been consistently rejected by Canadian courts and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.