Dr. Hunt

The litigation guardian for the plaintiff, who sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident and lacked capacity, sought court approval for the settlement of his tort and accident benefits claims.

The court found the settlement amounts of $300,000 for the tort claim and $400,000 for the accident benefits claim to be fair and reasonable.

However, the court found the contingency fee agreement with the plaintiff's lawyers to be neither fair nor reasonable, as it was signed when the lawyers doubted the plaintiff's capacity.

The court reduced the legal fees to 17% for the accident benefits claim and 25% for the tort claim.

The appellants, Orville Campbell and Stanton David, appealed their convictions for first-degree murder.

They argued the verdict was unreasonable due to insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation and alleged errors in the jury charge.

The Court of Appeal found the first-degree murder verdict unreasonable, concluding that the evidence did not establish planning and deliberation beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given the rapid sequence of events.

The court substituted the convictions with second-degree murder.

It dismissed all grounds for a new trial on second-degree murder, finding no reversible errors in the jury instructions regarding post-offence conduct, the Vetrovec warning for a key witness, pathology evidence, or the use of the deceased's criminal record.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning four young children who were apprehended due to severe neglect and developmental delays.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for crown wardship without access.

The father sought return of the children to his care, either pursuant to a section 57.1 order or with supervision.

The mother sought access.

The court found that the children continued to be in need of protection due to risks of physical and emotional harm and developmental delays.

The court determined that the father lacked the insight, judgment, and capacity to meet the complex medical and developmental needs of the children, despite community supports.

The court ordered that all four children be made crown wards for the purpose of adoption with no access to either parent.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder for stabbing his wife to death and nearly decapitating her.

The court determined the appropriate period of parole ineligibility.

The court rejected the accused's claims of profound depression and PTSD, finding him manipulative and lacking remorse.

Considering the brutal nature of the domestic homicide, the vulnerability of the victim, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the court set parole ineligibility at 15 years.

A status review application for Crown Wardship with no access concerning two children (ages 8 and 6) who were apprehended due to parental neglect, substance abuse, and psychological disturbance.

The court found that the children continue to be in need of protection and that Crown Wardship without access is in their best interests.

The children exhibited severe developmental delays, inappropriate sexualized behaviour, and lack of secure attachment to either parent.

Expert evidence from Dr. Ellis established that the parents lack the capacity to meet the children's profound emotional and psychological needs.

The court rejected the father's position that he could parent the children with minimal supervision, finding his credibility suspect and his denial of parenting shortfalls deeply rooted in his character.

The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sexual assault.

He appealed the convictions on the grounds that his statement to the police was obtained in violation of his Charter rights and that the trial judge made several errors in his charge to the jury.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was not detained at the time of his police interview, as he voluntarily cooperated and was not a suspect.

The Court also held that while the trial judge should have given a fabrication instruction regarding the appellant's false statement, the omission did not affect the verdict given the compelling circumstantial evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant, a child with severe autism, sought judicial review of a Special Education Tribunal decision affirming his placement in a Primary Autism Pilot Project rather than an Intensive Behavioural Intervention (IBI) program.

The applicant argued the Tribunal erred in finding the requested IBI program was medical treatment rather than education, and in failing to apply the Charter and Human Rights Code.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and supported by the evidence that the pilot project was appropriate for the applicant's needs.