Douglas Grace

The offender, a 37-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of simple possession of cocaine (29.4 grams), methamphetamine, and codeine.

The Crown sought 6 to 8 months in custody, while the defence requested a suspended sentence and probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the quantity of cocaine, but also considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, cooperation with police, and family circumstances.

The court sentenced the offender to 90 days in custody for the cocaine possession, and suspended sentences with 12 months of probation for the other two offences.

During a trial for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, the Crown brought an application to qualify a police officer as an expert in the use, pricing, sale, and distribution of cocaine.

The court dismissed the application without a formal voir dire, finding that the proposed evidence failed the Mohan test for admissibility.

Specifically, the court held that the evidence lacked legal relevance as it was not grounded on proven facts and was unnecessary because the inferences sought by the Crown, such as interpreting text messages, did not require expert assistance.

The accused, charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary arrest and unreasonable search.

The police stopped the accused's vehicle and arrested him without a warrant based on confidential informant information and surveillance.

The police subsequently searched his vehicle incident to arrest and found cocaine.

The court dismissed the application, finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and that the vehicle search was a valid search incident to arrest.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking numerous forms of relief in a construction lien dispute, several successful parties sought costs against the moving owners.

The court considered the presumption that successful litigants receive costs and the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court rejected arguments that alleged misconduct by the successful parties disentitled them to costs and held that the motion was largely unsuccessful and unnecessary in several respects.

Full recovery costs were awarded to one contractor whose claim should never have been contested, while partial indemnity costs were granted to the contractor and subcontractors in reduced amounts to remain fair and proportionate.

The moving parties, owners of a motel, brought a motion under s. 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act to discharge or vacate several construction liens registered by the contractor and subcontractors.

The owners argued the liens should be discharged or, alternatively, vacated upon posting $100,000 as security.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a motion to discharge a lien is akin to a summary judgment motion and there were numerous genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial, including responsibility for delays, scope of the contract, and quality of work.

The court also declined to arbitrarily reduce the security amount required to vacate the liens from the $489,000 claimed.