Chloe Boubalos

The appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and arson in the death of his intimate partner.

On appeal, he argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay statements made by the deceased about their relationship, failing to give a limiting instruction regarding bad character evidence, and permitting lay opinion evidence from firefighters about his demeanour at the scene.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the hearsay statements were properly admitted under the state of mind exception, a bad character limiting instruction was unnecessary given the specific directions provided, and the demeanour evidence was admissible lay opinion.

The appellant, a religious teacher, appealed his convictions for sexual assault and sexual interference against a 10-year-old student.

He argued the trial judge erred by failing to address inconsistencies and implausibilities in the complainant's evidence, improperly using a prior consistent statement to bolster credibility, and conflating the absence of a motive to fabricate with positive proof of no motive.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge adequately addressed the evidence, properly used the prior consistent statement as circumstantial evidence, and correctly addressed the motive to fabricate in response to the defence's cross-examination.

The applicant, charged with sexual offences against his nieces, brought an application for directions seeking to exclude child welfare records from the third-party records regime under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued the child welfare agencies acted as secondary state agents in a joint investigation with police.

The court dismissed the application, finding the agencies and police conducted parallel investigations in accordance with their distinct statutory mandates under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and the records remained subject to the s. 278.1 regime.

Following the successful summary judgment motions of seven defendant physicians in a medical negligence action, the court assessed the defendants' costs.

The defendants sought $78,639.56 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court fixed the costs at $68,694.86, finding the amount claimed for the motions slightly disproportionate to their complexity.

However, recognizing the genuine impecuniosity of the plaintiffs and the tragic circumstances of the underlying case, the court stayed the enforcement of the costs award pending the final disposition of the remaining claims against the other defendants.

The plaintiffs brought medical negligence claims against numerous physicians and a hospital following the death of a patient from an acute aortic dissection.

Seven of the defendant physicians moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs failed to produce expert evidence establishing the applicable standard of care, breach, and causation.

The court granted the summary judgment motions, finding that the plaintiffs' expert reports did not establish the essential elements of negligence against the moving defendants, and that this was not a clear case where expert evidence could be dispensed with.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' counter-motion to consolidate the actions and serve a jury notice, but dismissed their request for production of original hospital records, as those records had been destroyed in accordance with hospital policy after being digitized.