Derek Alexander Johnson

Two accused were jointly charged with human trafficking offences, including unlawfully recruiting and exercising control over a young woman for the purpose of exploiting her in the sex trade, receiving financial benefits from sexual services, advertising sexual services, procuring for sexual services, and unlawful confinement.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a young mother with a history of drug use and involvement with child protective services.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility, arguing she fabricated allegations to avoid losing custody of her child.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable despite inconsistencies noted by initial police responders.

The court convicted both accused of human trafficking and procurement offences, finding they exercised control and direction over the complainant through threats and coercion, causing her to provide sexual services against her will.

One accused was also convicted of receiving financial benefits from the offences and breaching probation conditions.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a personal injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The motion relied in part on an expert human factors report opining that one independent witness’s recollection was more reliable than another’s.

The court held that the report improperly intruded on the role of the trier of fact by effectively assessing witness credibility and preferring one account over another.

Given conflicting eyewitness evidence and credibility issues suitable for a jury, the court found that the matter required a trial.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed with costs.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing his application for declaratory relief as statute-barred.

The appellant argued that under s. 16(1)(a) of the Limitations Act, there is no limitation period for his application.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the application implicitly sought consequential relief, taking it outside the scope of s. 16(1)(a).

The Court noted that any viable claim the appellant might have would be through an application for an order to pass accounts.

The appellants appealed a jury verdict in a motor vehicle accident case, arguing the trial judge erred by charging the jury on both the 'but for' and 'material contribution' tests for causation.

The Court of Appeal agreed that charging on both tests was an error of law, as only one test applies.

However, the court found no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice, as the trial judge's explanation of 'material contribution' effectively amounted to a further instruction on the 'but for' test.

The respondent's cross-appeal regarding the trial judge's guidance on the quantum of damages was also dismissed.