Dunphy

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code to modify a no-contact condition, seeking limited access to his children.

The applicant faced serious charges including sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats, with some allegations involving the children.

The court dismissed the application as premature, holding that the family court is the appropriate forum to determine child access based on the best interests of the children.

The court noted that a future family court order granting access could constitute a material change in circumstances justifying a renewed bail review application.

The applicants sought declarations regarding the governance and operations of the Mount Pleasant Group of Cemeteries (MPGC), a statutory trust established in 1826.

The court granted the applicants public interest standing and found that MPGC's directors had not been validly appointed since 1987, as they failed to comply with the mandatory election procedures in the 1849 Act.

The court declared that MPGC holds its assets as a charitable trust and that its operation of visitation centres and funeral homes exceeded its statutory objects.

The court declined to order a formal investigation under the Charities Accounting Act but appointed the seven most senior directors as trustees, subject to confirmation at a public meeting.

The applicant's husband died intestate, leaving a complex international estate.

The applicant sought an extension of the six-month deadline under section 6 of the Family Law Act to elect between an equalization payment and her entitlement under the Succession Law Reform Act.

The court granted a one-year extension, finding that the applicant needed more time to assemble a reasonable knowledge base to make an informed choice, the delay was incurred in good faith, and there was minimal prejudice to the estate.

The applicants, engaged in combating government corruption in Malaysia, sought a Norwich Pharmacal order to compel financial institutions to produce confidential information about a Canadian real estate group.

The applicants suspected the group was funded by proceeds of foreign corruption and contemplated a private criminal prosecution for money laundering and receipt of proceeds of crime.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the applicants lacked reasonable grounds to believe an indictable offence had been committed, and that it would be inappropriate to use the court's inherent civil jurisdiction to bypass the careful balance struck by Parliament in the Criminal Code for criminal investigations and private prosecutions.

The applicant church sought a declaration that its single-building complex, which housed both a place of worship and a religious school, was exempt from property taxation under the Assessment Act.

The respondent assessment corporation argued that the school portions were taxable because the school was operated by a separately incorporated entity.

The court found that the church and the school formed a single patrimony, with the church controlling and dominating the school's operations.

The court held that the exemptions for a place of worship and a non-profit educational seminary applied to the school-use areas, granting the application.

A law firm brought an application under section 23 of the Solicitors Act seeking an order for the payment of outstanding legal accounts.

The client had not challenged the validity or effect of the retainer agreement itself, but simply had not paid the accounts.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, holding that sections 23 and 24 of the Act do not permit a solicitor to bypass the standard assessment process to collect unpaid accounts where the underlying retainer agreement is not in dispute.

The plaintiff was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle collision after an unidentified school bus spun out of control on the highway.

The plaintiff sued the unidentified driver and his own insurer under the unidentified motorist coverage.

The insurer brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiff was solely responsible for the collision.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff established a prima facie case of negligence against the bus driver that required a trial.

The court also declined to use its expanded fact-finding powers under Rule 20.04(2.1) because the plaintiff had served a jury notice, and it was in the interests of justice to preserve the right to a jury trial.