D. Taylor

The applicants, comprising raw milk producers and consumers, challenged federal and provincial prohibitions on the sale and distribution of unpasteurized milk, alleging violations of their freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and equality rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed all claims, finding that the applicants' belief in raw milk's health benefits did not constitute a profound moral dimension for freedom of conscience, the religious interference was trivial and insubstantial, and the equality claim lacked a sufficient evidentiary basis.

The court further held that even if Charter violations were established, they would be justified under section 1 due to the compelling public health objective of preventing milk-borne illnesses, which pasteurization effectively mitigates.

The court determined costs following its decision that the applicant, A.R., lacked standing to seek access to her adopted child.

The respondents, M.B. and E.B., sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules, including the importance and complexity of issues, parties' behaviour, counsel rates, time spent, and the applicant's limited financial means.

The court found the case not overly complex, noted some unreasonableness in the applicant's conduct, and deemed the respondents' claimed hours excessive.

It disallowed certain disbursements and ultimately awarded the respondents $20,000 for fees plus HST, and $611.22 for disbursements plus HST, significantly less than the amount sought.

The defendant was charged with common assault and failing to comply with a probation order after allegedly pushing an elderly woman down stairs at a shopping mall.

The Crown presented testimony from the complainant and two independent witnesses who claimed the defendant pushed the complainant down the stairs.

The defendant testified that he made only incidental contact with the complainant's arm while gesturing to allow her to pass.

The court reviewed CCTV footage of the incident and found that the video evidence supported the defendant's account of accidental contact rather than an intentional assault.

The defendant was acquitted on both counts.