Unnamed handwriting expert

The appellant was convicted of importing 15 kilograms of cocaine.

On appeal, he challenged the conviction on two grounds: first, that the trial judge failed to properly apply the third part of the W.(D.) analysis regarding the burden of proof; and second, that the trial judge provided insufficient reasons explaining how the Crown proved the appellant's knowledge of the cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt.

The majority dismissed the appeal, finding that while the trial judge's reasons could have been clearer, they were sufficient when read in context and demonstrated proper application of the legal principles.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding the combination of the trial judge's misstatement of the onus of proof and failure to make explicit findings on the critical issue of knowledge to be fatal to the conviction.

The plaintiff moved for summary judgment to recover funds allegedly loaned or invested in the defendant corporation and evidenced by promissory notes.

The defendant opposed the motion and sought summary judgment dismissing the claim on the basis that it was statute‑barred.

The court held that the limitation period under the Limitations Act expired in February 2008 following a demand for payment in 2006 and that no valid acknowledgment occurred before the expiry of the limitation period.

A purported later promissory note relied upon by the plaintiff was found to be a forgery and therefore could not revive the claim or constitute an acknowledgment of debt.

The plaintiff’s claim, whether framed as enforcement of the promissory notes or as a loan, was statute‑barred and equitable relief was unavailable due to the plaintiff’s lack of clean hands.