4 total
The court granted the Crown's application to allow the complainant to testify remotely via videoconference.
The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant in a sexual assault and uttering threats trial to testify remotely via videoconference.
The complainant resided in British Columbia, was pregnant with health issues, and concerned about COVID-19 travel.
The defence conceded the s. 714.1 criteria were met but objected, arguing that remote testimony should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances when credibility is at issue, and that cross-examination with documents/video might be difficult.
The court granted the application, rejecting the "exceptional and compelling circumstances" test for credibility, noting Parliament's amendments to s. 714.1 and courts' extensive experience with virtual testimony.
The court also addressed the practical concerns regarding evidence presentation.
Successful summary judgment defendants awarded modest costs despite request for substantial indemnity.
Following a successful summary judgment application dismissing claims against condominium owners in a wrongful death action, the moving parties sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.
The estate had alleged the owners owed duties as landlords or occupiers relating to a fatal fall from a balcony, but evidence established that the owners were not present and had no interaction with the deceased.
Prior to the hearing, the moving parties had delivered a formal offer to waive costs if the action was discontinued against them, which the estate declined.
The court held that the estate continued to pursue liability despite information indicating the owners were not involved in the events.
Taking into account the tragic circumstances of the death, the court fixed costs in a reduced amount rather than awarding substantial indemnity.
Board has no discretion to grant a liquor licence if the applicant made a false statement.
The Registrar appealed a decision of the Board of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission granting the respondent a liquor delivery service licence.
The respondent had failed to disclose recent criminal convictions on his application.
The Board found that the respondent made a false statement but granted the licence anyway, citing personal hardships and relying on evidence it had otherwise deemed not credible.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 6(2)(e) and s. 10(2) of the Liquor Licence Act, the Board has no discretion to grant a licence once it finds an applicant made a false statement.
The Court also found the Board erred by considering irrelevant factors and rejected evidence.
The Registrar was ordered to carry out the proposal to refuse the licence.
Tenant's cross-appeal regarding damage to stored goods dismissed as trial judge made no palpable error.
The tenant cross-appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed his claim for damage to his goods.
The trial judge had found that the landlord was entitled to dispose of and store the tenant's bug-infested goods after the tenant failed to remove them.
The trial judge assessed the tenant's damages at $1,908 and the landlord's storage costs at $1,900, dismissing both claims due to the offsetting amounts.
The Divisional Court dismissed the cross-appeal, finding no palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact.
Costs of $2,500 were awarded to the landlord.
