C. Wagman

The appellant appealed a summary conviction for impaired care or control of a motor vehicle under s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge convicted after finding the accused impaired while seated in the driver’s seat of a vehicle with the engine running, relying on the statutory presumption of care or control.

On appeal, the court held the trial judge failed to analyze whether the presumption of care or control under s. 258(1)(a) had been rebutted by the accused’s evidence that he did not intend to drive.

The trial judge also failed to conduct a proper risk-of-danger analysis required where the Crown seeks to establish actual care or control.

Because the reasons did not reveal the necessary analytical steps, appellate review was impossible and the conviction could not stand.

Following a construction lien trial where the plaintiff subcontractor obtained judgment against the general contractor, the court determined the costs of the action.

The issues included whether success was divided, the appropriate scale of costs following a rejected offer to settle under Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, and whether the defendant could recover costs associated with the owner’s legal expenses and the removal of a lien from title.

The court held that the plaintiff was the more successful party and had beaten its pre‑trial offer, entitling it to partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity thereafter.

However, because the plaintiff unnecessarily kept the owner in the action after the lien was vacated, the court allowed a set‑off representing the reasonable portion of the owner’s legal costs.

Final costs were fixed in favour of the plaintiff after deductions.

Parallel motions were brought seeking relief for repeated non-compliance with court orders and undertakings in related proceedings.

The moving party requested that the defendants’ statement of defence and responding affidavit be struck due to ongoing delays, failure to produce documents, non-payment of ordered costs, and breaches of multiple court orders.

The court acknowledged a pattern of delay and grudging compliance but held that striking pleadings is an extreme remedy reserved for cases where conduct is contumelious or amounts to abandonment of the court process.

While serious defaults were found, the defendants had taken some partial steps toward compliance.

The court therefore declined to strike the defence and instead issued a final “last chance” order requiring completion of outstanding undertakings, payment of costs, and disclosure of missing corporate records.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant general contractor for unpaid contract amounts and extras on a school renovation project.

The defendant argued that no amounts were due under the contract's 'pay when paid' provisions and claimed back-charges for uncompleted work and a PST credit.

The court held that the Construction Lien Act supersedes the contract's payment terms.

The court allowed most of the plaintiff's claims for extras, dismissed the defendant's claim for a PST credit, but allowed the defendant's back-charge for uncompleted brickwork.

The plaintiff was awarded a net judgment of $27,450.95.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking a further and better affidavit of documents and an order compelling the defendant solicitor to attend for examinations for discovery.

The dispute arose from an alleged arrangement under which the defendant would refer personal injury clients for medical assessments and pay the plaintiffs’ invoices upon settlement of those claims.

The court found that the defendants’ affidavit of documents was deficient, that privilege had been asserted in a blanket and improper manner, and that relevant documents supporting numerous pleaded defences had not been disclosed.

The court ordered the defendants to serve a supplementary affidavit of documents with proper Schedule “A” production and particularized Schedule “B” privilege claims, and required the defendant to attend for discovery by a fixed deadline.

Costs were awarded to the moving party on a substantial indemnity basis due to the defendants’ delay, conduct during the motion, and failure to cooperate in the discovery process.