D. Smith

The respondent father applied in Ontario to vary a final consent order respecting the primary residence of the parties' six-year-old daughter.

The applicant mother moved to transfer the variation application to Manitoba under s. 6(3) of the Divorce Act.

The court found that the child, who had lived in Manitoba for almost her entire life, was most substantially connected to Manitoba.

The court concluded that transferring the proceeding was in the child's best interests and would not impede the proper administration of justice.

The motion to transfer was granted.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and unlawfully causing bodily harm arising from unauthorized buttocks augmentation procedures performed using PMMA injections.

The Crown sought detention on primary and secondary grounds, arguing risk of flight and danger to the community.

The accused proposed two sureties with pledges totalling $11,000.

The court found the Crown's case strong, the accused's conduct reckless and dangerous, and the proposed release plan inadequate due to the sureties' unwillingness to provide residential supervision and their lack of commitment.

Detention was ordered.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine after arriving at Toronto Pearson International Airport carrying 80 pellets of cocaine internally.

At trial, the accused testified that he had been kidnapped in St. Lucia and forced at gunpoint to swallow and insert the drug pellets, raising the defence of duress.

The court reviewed the elements of the common law defence of duress, including the requirement of a threat, reasonable belief in its execution, absence of a safe avenue of escape, and proportionality.

The judge rejected the accused’s testimony as inconsistent and implausible, finding multiple opportunities existed to seek help from authorities or airline personnel.

Concluding that the explanation of coercion was not credible and did not raise a reasonable doubt, the court inferred that the drugs were ingested voluntarily and intentionally imported into Canada.

Following the dismissal of an action on summary judgment as statute-barred, res judicata, and an abuse of process, the court considered the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff had commenced a second action arising from the same underlying facts as a prior lawsuit that had already been dismissed and upheld on appeal.

The court held that the re-litigation of the same dispute justified an award of substantial indemnity costs due to the abusive nature of the proceeding and the allegations of misconduct made against the defendants.

However, the court declined to order costs personally against the plaintiff’s counsel despite finding that unnecessary costs were incurred, emphasizing the need for extreme caution and the protection of solicitor-client privilege.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the plaintiff in the amount of $24,007.07 payable to the Scotia defendants.

The applicant, charged with numerous serious offences including home invasion, unlawful confinement, and firearms offences, applied for a detention review after spending approximately 2.5 years in pre-trial custody.

He argued that the delay constituted a material change in circumstances and that the original show cause justice erred in principle by detaining him on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that much of the delay was attributable to the applicant himself.

The court also upheld the original justice's findings that detention was necessary for the protection of the public and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, given the horrific nature of the allegations and the strength of the Crown's case.