David Goodman

The accused brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The projected delay from arrest to the end of the trial was 39.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found that the delay was primarily attributable to the exceptional circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, which caused significant court closures and systemic backlogs.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The applicants sought an order for the partition and sale of a residential property co-owned with the respondent.

Due to the parties' inability to cooperate, the applicants requested the appointment of a third-party sales officer.

The court granted the application, appointing RSM to conduct the sale process to avoid further disputes and legal costs.

Costs of $15,833 were ordered to be paid to the applicants from the proceeds of the sale, effectively spreading the cost among all four owners.

The plaintiff sought costs following a successful motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaims and crossclaims, and the dismissal of the defendant's cross-motion.

The plaintiff requested $9,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The self-represented defendant did not provide costs submissions despite an extension.

The court found the plaintiff's costs generally reasonable but reduced the amount to account for the attendance of two senior counsel at the hearing.

The court awarded the plaintiff $8,000 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff bank brought a motion to dismiss the self-represented defendant's counterclaim and crossclaim, arguing they were derivative claims belonging to a dissolved corporation.

The defendant brought a cross-motion seeking production of banking records and a court order to revive the dissolved corporation.

The court dismissed the cross-motion, finding it lacked jurisdiction to order the corporate revival and that the requested banking records either did not exist or belonged to third parties.

The court granted the bank's motion to dismiss the counterclaims and crossclaim, applying the rule in Foss v. Harbottle to conclude the defendant could not personally sue for wrongs allegedly committed against the corporation, save for a claim for an accounting.

The applicants, estate trustees of the late Ellen Kates, sought to propound codicils executed in August 2011.

The objectors challenged the codicils on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence, citing the testator's diagnosis of moderate Alzheimer's disease.

The court found that despite the cognitive impairment, the testator understood the nature and effect of the codicils, the extent of her property, and the claims of those excluded.

The court also found no evidence of coercion or fraud amounting to undue influence.

The codicils were admitted to probate.

The accused, charged with firearms trafficking, sought a bail review after being detained on the tertiary ground.

The reviewing judge found no error of law in the original bail judge's decision but concluded that a material change in circumstances had occurred.

The accused presented a new release plan involving house arrest, two suitable sureties, and an ankle monitor.

The court held that this new plan was sufficient to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice and ordered the accused's release.

The accused were tried on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, and assault arising from alleged abuse of a child over several years within a family setting.

The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant and corroborative aspects of a sibling’s evidence, while the defence emphasized inconsistencies between witness accounts and prior statements.

The court accepted that the complainant was generally credible but identified material inconsistencies regarding key events, timing, and corroborating circumstances.

In the absence of forensic or independent third‑party evidence, these inconsistencies created a reasonable doubt.

The accused were acquitted on all counts.