Dr. John C. Butt

The applicants laid private informations against six police officers for assault and perjury arising from a 2006 incident involving the execution of a Feeney warrant.

After several pre-enquete hearings, the Crown intervened and stayed the charges, citing no reasonable prospect of conviction and no public interest.

The applicants sought an order of mandamus to compel the return of the informations and a new pre-enquete hearing.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown had the statutory power to stay the proceedings under s. 579 of the Criminal Code and that there was no evidence of flagrant impropriety by the Crown to justify judicial interference.

The Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), acting as litigation guardian for a plaintiff under a disability, brought a motion under Rule 7.08 for court approval of a proposed $45,000 settlement of claims arising from an alleged police assault.

The plaintiff and his family opposed the settlement, arguing he was not under a disability and should proceed to trial.

Following a court-ordered capacity assessment, the court confirmed the plaintiff lacked capacity to instruct counsel and that the PGT had the authority to settle the action.

However, the court found the evidentiary record insufficient to meaningfully assess the reasonableness of the proposed settlement, particularly regarding general and special damages.

The court directed the PGT to provide further medical documentation and adjourned the approval determination.