B. Pritchard

The accused was charged with drug and weapons offences and brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay from charge to the anticipated end of trial was over 38 months.

After deducting defence delay, the net delay was approximately 36 months, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown conceded the case was not particularly complex, and the court found no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

The applicants, charged with drug trafficking offences, brought an application for disclosure of police notes related to a search warrant.

The Information to Obtain (ITO) relied heavily on information from confidential informants.

The affiant officer stated she reviewed the handler's notes when drafting the ITO.

The Crown refused to disclose these source notes, arguing they were irrelevant.

The court held that because the affiant expressly reviewed and relied on the handler's notes, they formed part of the investigative file and must be disclosed, subject to redactions to protect informant privilege.

On an interim parenting motion following a contentious separation, the moving party sought continuation of a week‑about parenting schedule that had been used during the summer.

The responding party requested a return to the prior schedule in which the children resided primarily with the mother and had midweek and alternating weekend access with the father.

The court considered conflicting affidavit evidence, CAS involvement, and the parents’ inability to cooperate.

Emphasizing the need for stability and the children’s best interests, the court concluded the previous access arrangement had provided stability and should be restored.

Interim custody was granted to the mother with defined access to the father and restrictions regarding certain third parties during parenting time.

In a family support motion brought pending an appeal from an adjournment order, the moving party sought suspension of support payments or payment into a holding account until the validity of a separation agreement could be determined.

The court held that Rule 38(25) of the Family Law Rules is procedural only and does not confer substantive authority to grant that relief.

The court further held that the requested remedy exceeded what could properly follow even if the appeal from the adjournment were successful.

The motion was dismissed, with brief written costs submissions invited.

The applicant brought a motion to sever a joint tenancy in a matrimonial home following separation and settlement of family law proceedings, and sought discharge of a creditor’s writ of execution registered against the property.

The court considered whether the parties’ conduct during matrimonial litigation constituted a course of dealing sufficient to sever the joint tenancy under the principles set out in Hansen Estate.

The court held that the parties’ actions demonstrated a mutual intention to treat their interests as tenants in common, thereby severing the joint tenancy.

Exercising equitable jurisdiction, the court further ordered that the creditor’s writ be discharged upon payment of $37,000 into court pending determination of entitlement among potential creditors.

The court found insufficient evidence that the creditor would be prejudiced by such an order.