Christian Tremblay

The Caisse Populaire de North Bay Limitée moved for summary judgment seeking possession of a mortgaged property due to default on two mortgages and dismissal of the defendant's counterclaim alleging oppressive conduct.

The defendant, Christi-Anne Marie Lafrance, disputed the validity and amounts of the mortgages, arguing they were stayed or discharged by her bankruptcy, and that the Caisse engaged in oppressive conduct.

The court granted leave to amend the plaintiff's name to Caisse Populaire Alliance Limitée, granted summary judgment on the Caisse's claim, and dismissed the counterclaim, finding no genuine issue for trial.

The court clarified that secured debts are not stayed or discharged by bankruptcy if the debtor continues to benefit from the contract.

The defendant was charged with depositing snow or ice on a highway contrary to City of Greater Sudbury By-law 2011-219, Road Fouling By-law, section 8(1), with an offence date of November 21, 2018.

The prosecution failed to prove the municipal by-law creating the offence charged, as it tendered only an uncertified photocopy of a by-law dated seven years prior without establishing that it had not been amended or repealed.

Additionally, on the merits, the defendant established a due diligence defence.

The defendant was found not guilty.

The defendant was charged with disobeying a traffic sign contrary to section 182(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant admitted to proceeding through an intersection marked "right turns only" to access a Tim Hortons but raised a defence of necessity due to an urgent need to use the washroom.

The court found the defendant not guilty because the prosecution failed to prove an essential element of the actus reus of the offence—that the traffic sign complied with the regulatory requirements.

The constable's testimony regarding the sign's appearance was inconsistent with the prescribed regulatory specifications for such intersections, and the evidence was insufficient to establish either the sign's compliance or the existence of a supporting municipal by-law.

The respondent's dog bit four people, prompting the appellant medical health officer to issue an order requiring the dog to be euthanized.

After breaching an interim consent order that allowed him to keep the dog pending appeal, the respondent's appeal was dismissed and he was ordered to surrender the dog.

Instead, he sent the dog to the United States.

The appellant brought a motion for contempt, which the motion judge dismissed on the technicality that the respondent was asked to surrender the dog to the SPCA rather than the Humane Society as specified in the order.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding it had jurisdiction because the dismissal of the contempt motion was a final order.

The Court held the motion judge erred by adopting a formalistic approach, as the respondent clearly breached the spirit and intent of the euthanasia order.

The defendant brought a Charter application under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenging a traffic stop and the issuance of a ticket for driving without a valid license.

The defendant alleged that the stop constituted an arbitrary detention based on racial profiling.

The court found that the officer had articulable cause to stop the defendant's vehicle based on specific information that the defendant was an unlicensed driver, information that was only two weeks old at the time of the stop.

The court rejected the racial profiling allegation, finding that the circumstances did not support an inference of racial profiling and that the stop was lawful under provincial legislation.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent $25,000 in damages and $7,500 in costs, payable jointly and severally by the appellants and their lawyer.

The appellants argued the deputy judge should have recused himself due to bias, the costs were excessive, and costs should not have been awarded against counsel.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal regarding the damages and the quantum of costs, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no error in the costs assessment.

However, the court allowed the appeal regarding costs against the appellants' lawyer, finding he was not given sufficient notice under Rule 57.07.