Brad Middleton

The Crown brought applications under s. 486(2) of the Criminal Code to permit child complainants to testify by closed‑circuit television and under s. 715.1 to admit their video‑recorded statements.

The complainants were between nine and eleven years old and their statements had been recorded shortly after the alleged incidents.

The defence did not oppose the legal basis for the applications but sought procedural safeguards regarding the functioning of the technology and guidance regarding the witnesses’ obligation to tell the truth.

The court confirmed the presumption of testimonial capacity for witnesses under 14 under s. 16.1 of the Canada Evidence Act and directed that the children promise to tell the truth without questioning about their understanding of the promise.

The court granted the Crown’s requests and ordered the procedure to proceed accordingly.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a mortgage enforcement action seeking repayment and possession of the mortgaged property following default.

The defendants argued that the parties had reached an oral agreement granting a moratorium on payments and suspending enforcement while the development project progressed.

Applying the summary judgment framework from Hryniak v. Mauldin, the court used its fact‑finding powers to evaluate credibility and draw inferences from the evidentiary record.

The court found no credible evidence establishing a binding forbearance agreement and concluded that the defendants failed to prove any modification to the mortgage terms.

Summary judgment was granted and the plaintiff obtained judgment for the principal, interest, and possession of the property.

The Crown applied to the Superior Court for a review of a judicial interim release order that granted bail to the accused with two parental sureties.

The accused faced multiple assault charges against an intimate partner and an alleged breach of a conditional sentence order.

The Crown argued that the justice of the peace erred in approving the parents as sureties because they had previously been aware of the accused’s drug use and had provided medication during withdrawal.

The reviewing judge held that the proper standard was whether the justice of the peace made an error in law, not whether another decision-maker might have reached a different conclusion.

Finding that the justice of the peace carefully assessed the evidence, including a Gladue report and the suitability of the sureties, the court concluded that no legal error occurred and declined to interfere with the bail order.