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 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.

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.