Brigitte Gratl

The appellant mother appealed an order varying custody and access of her two sons.

Before the appeal was heard, the parties entered into minutes of settlement to resolve the appeal, which included abandoning the appeal.

The appellant sought to set aside the minutes, alleging they were based on misleading information from the respondent father.

The Court of Appeal held it was not the proper forum to determine the validity of the minutes of settlement.

Noting that all parties agreed a change in circumstances warranted a variation hearing, the Court dismissed the appeal, leaving the appellant to challenge the minutes and seek a variation in the Superior Court with the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The mother appealed an order dismissing her appeal from a summary judgment that granted Crown wardship without access.

The child had been placed with an adoptive family after the mother struggled with addiction and instability.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the lower court's decision.

Although the mother submitted fresh evidence showing she had rehabilitated herself, the court held it was not in the child's best interests to be removed from her adoptive family after significant time had passed.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences arising from a high-speed police chase in a stolen vehicle that crashed into a police cruiser.

The primary issue at trial was the identification of the driver.

The police failed to preserve the stolen vehicle and the damaged police cruiser for defence examination.

The trial judge dismissed the appellant's motion for a stay of proceedings based on the lost evidence.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal found that while the failure to preserve the evidence breached the appellant's section 7 Charter rights, a stay was not the appropriate remedy due to the defence's lack of diligence and tactical decisions.

The court also dismissed appeals regarding the jury instructions on eyewitness identification, the Crown's closing address, and the sentence imposed.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding whether the parties' cohabitation was for the primary purpose of reconciliation under their separation agreement.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the matter involved diametrically conflicting evidence and required findings of credibility that could only be resolved after a trial on viva voce evidence, rather than on a motion.

The parties reached an agreement reflected in Minutes of Settlement.

The respondent, who was unrepresented on appeal but received independent legal advice, consented to the order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on consent to reflect the terms of the settlement.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding custody, access, spousal support, and costs.

She argued the trial judge erred in his orders, demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, and improperly denied spousal support.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's custody and access orders were supported by evidence and reasonable.

The court found no apprehension of bias, upheld the denial of spousal support based on the parties' financial positions, and found no error in the trial costs award.