E.A. Quinlan

The applicant sought habeas corpus with certiorari in aid, arguing that his continued detention as an involuntary psychiatric patient following completion of a criminal sentence was unlawful and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He alleged the practice of “psychiatric gating” and argued that his detention constituted double jeopardy.

The court held that the detention was authorized under the Mental Health Act following lawful execution of a Form 1 and Form 3 and repeated confirmation by the Consent and Capacity Board that the statutory criteria for involuntary admission remained satisfied.

The court also found that civil committal following a completed criminal sentence does not breach Charter protections against arbitrary detention or cruel and unusual punishment.

The proper remedy for disagreement with the board’s decisions was an appeal, not habeas corpus.

Following a 13‑day jury trial in a pedestrian motor vehicle accident case, the plaintiff obtained damages exceeding a prior offer to settle made under Rule 49 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff sought significant costs and disbursements, arguing entitlement to partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court applied s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rules 57.01 and 49.10, emphasizing the policy objective of encouraging settlements and maintaining predictability in cost consequences.

While the court accepted that Rule 49 consequences applied because the judgment exceeded the offer, it found the hours and some disbursements claimed to be excessive.

Applying principles of fairness and proportionality, the court reduced the amounts and fixed total costs and disbursements at $330,000 inclusive of HST.

The Crown sought mandamus with certiorari in aid to quash preliminary inquiry discharges on several drug and firearms-related offences.

The court examined whether the preliminary inquiry judge committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the whole of the evidence and by exceeding the limited weighing permitted when assessing circumstantial evidence under the committal test.

The reviewing court found that the preliminary inquiry judge failed to consider key evidence linking the accused to a residence containing methamphetamine and failed to consider direct expert evidence linking firearms to gun boxes found in a storage unit.

Those failures constituted jurisdictional error requiring intervention.

However, the court held there was insufficient evidence to support committal of one accused on ammunition-related charges tied to the storage unit.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for an interim preservation order regarding the matrimonial home pending appeal, the respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court found that the respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the judgment and that the applicant's conduct unnecessarily increased costs.

The court awarded the respondent costs fixed at $6,500 on a substantial indemnity basis, payable within 30 days.

The appellant rental car company appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for vehicle damage against the respondent renter.

The deputy judge had refused to allow the appellant to rely on evidence that an unauthorized driver was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident, citing a lack of proper notice in the pleadings.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the deputy judge erred in law by holding the appellant to an unworkable standard of pleading for Small Claims Court and failing to construe the rules liberally.

The court also found the deputy judge misapprehended the evidence regarding whether the accident was properly reported to the police and the rental company.