D. Fisher

The plaintiffs brought a motion to substitute HCN-Revera Leasee (Alta Vista LP) as a defendant and amend their statement of claim in an action arising from alleged negligence and elder abuse at a retirement home.

The defendants opposed, arguing the amendment sought to add a new party after the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The court found that while the limitation period had expired, the amendment was a genuine correction of a misnomer, as the 'litigation finger' clearly pointed at the proposed defendant.

Finding no non-compensable prejudice, the court granted the motion to correct the misnomer and awarded costs to the plaintiffs.

The applicant purchased property and obtained title insurance from the respondent.

The former owner sued the applicant to set aside the sale, and the respondent initially assumed the defence.

The applicant later lost title to the property through power of sale proceedings, prompting the respondent to deny a continuing duty to defend on the basis that the applicant no longer owned the property.

The applicant brought an application seeking a declaration that the respondent owed a continuing duty to defend.

The court found that the underlying action included a claim for damages based on unjust enrichment, which triggered the respondent's duty to defend even though the applicant no longer owned the property.

The applicant sought leave under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to proceed to a jury hearing to reduce his period of parole ineligibility for a life sentence imposed for first degree murder.

The court applied the post‑2011 threshold under s. 745.61 requiring the applicant to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, a substantial likelihood that a jury would reduce the period of parole ineligibility.

Although the applicant demonstrated positive institutional conduct and program participation during incarceration, psychological assessments raised concerns about his failure to accept full responsibility and refusal to identify accomplices involved in the offence.

Considering the statutory criteria under s. 745.63, including the brutal nature of the murder, victim impact evidence, and lack of genuine accountability, the court concluded that a unanimous jury would not likely grant relief.

The application was dismissed with leave to reapply after five years.

The applicant, convicted of first degree murder of a police officer and attempted murder of another, sought permission under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code to have a jury consider reducing his 25‑year parole ineligibility period.

At the pre‑screening stage under s. 745.61, the court had to determine whether there was a substantial likelihood that the application would succeed.

The judge reviewed the statutory criteria in s. 745.63, including the applicant’s character, institutional conduct, the nature of the offence, victim impact, and other relevant factors such as remorse and a deportation order.

Although the applicant demonstrated some institutional progress, the court found significant concerns regarding the genuineness of his rehabilitation and emphasized the extreme seriousness of the offence.

The judge concluded that the record did not establish a substantial likelihood that a jury would reduce the parole ineligibility period.