C. S. Glithero J.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, applied for a change of venue for his re-trial.

In his first trial, the jury convicted him of causing an indignity to a body but could not reach a verdict on the murder charge, resulting in a mistrial.

The applicant argued that extensive pre-trial publicity regarding the 'split verdict' created a likelihood of prejudice in the local area.

Relying on expert evidence regarding the effects of pre-trial publicity, the court found that knowledge of the first trial's outcome would likely taint a new jury's ability to be impartial, as it implied the first jury rejected the accused's evidence.

The application was granted and the venue was ordered changed.

Following a successful trial judgment awarding damages for unpaid loans, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs to the date of a settlement offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, relying on Rule 57.01 and the fact that the trial result exceeded the offer.

The court reduced certain trial preparation hours but otherwise found the rates and time spent reasonable.

A co-defendant who had not opposed the claim but had defended against cross-liability from the other defendant was also awarded costs.

Costs payable by the remaining defendant were fixed notwithstanding a consumer proposal filed under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act after trial but before the costs determination.

A real estate brokerage sued a homeowner seeking recovery of commission following the sale of the homeowner’s property.

The brokerage argued its agent introduced the eventual buyers and performed services leading to the sale.

The court found the agent merely forwarded an MLS listing and prepared an offer that was never accepted, while the final agreement of purchase and sale was prepared independently without any commission clause.

Because the agent did not produce an accepted offer meeting the seller’s commission conditions and did not complete the transaction, no contractual entitlement to commission arose.

The claim was dismissed.