2 total
Stay for abuse of process denied but costs ordered against Crown for delayed disclosure.
The accused, charged with aggravated sexual assault of his intimate partner, applied for a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process due to delayed disclosure regarding his seized cell phone, improper police access, and a breach of solicitor-client privilege in a second search warrant.
The court found no breach of privilege and that there was no improper police access.
However, the court identified serious omissions and false statements in the Information to Obtain (ITO) for the second warrant, leading to it being set aside.
Furthermore, the court found the police investigation into the phone's continuity was unacceptably delayed and uncooperative.
While a stay was denied because the state's conduct did not compromise trial fairness, the court found the state's conduct warranted an exceptional order for costs against the Crown.
The court found a joint investment agreement existed for a property and awarded the applicants their proportionate share of the sale proceeds alongside spousal support.
The applicants, three siblings, sought compensation for their claimed interest in a townhouse property (Haig property) purchased by the respondents.
The applicants alleged a verbal agreement to invest equally in the property with the respondents, contributing to downpayment loans, mortgage payments, and carrying costs.
The respondents denied any such agreement, claiming the applicants were tenants paying below-market rent.
The court found a joint investment agreement existed based on extensive evidence including expense tracking spreadsheets, e-transfer records, and testimony.
The court awarded each applicant $155,000 representing their one-fifth interest in the net sale proceeds.
Additionally, the applicant Kiran was awarded non-compensatory spousal support based on need and her chronic medical condition, with retroactive support from October 2021 and ongoing monthly support until September 2032.
