Unnamed Psychiatrist

The applicant, an adult grandson of the deceased, sought leave to appeal a decision dismissing his motion for interim support from his grandmother's estate.

The motions judge had found that the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that he was a dependant whom the deceased was supporting immediately before her death.

The Divisional Court found no good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision, noting the sporadic nature of the financial assistance and the deceased's deliberate removal of the applicant from her will.

The motion for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Following a four‑week jury trial arising from a motor vehicle collision caused by an impaired driver, the plaintiffs obtained a damages verdict of $220,000 but a much smaller net judgment after statutory deductions and accident benefits offsets.

Both parties sought costs, relying on competing Rule 49 settlement offers and arguments concerning proportionality and the impact of statutory deductibles.

The court held that statutory deductibles are not considered when determining entitlement to costs and rejected the defendant’s argument that its offers were more favourable.

After reviewing the complexity of the trial, expert evidence, motions, and proportionality considerations, the court fixed the plaintiffs’ costs at $250,000 in fees plus $126,598.48 in disbursements and applicable HST.

The court further concluded that recent amendments to the Insurance Act affecting cost calculations should not apply retroactively to this litigation.

The Crown appealed the sentence of two years less a day imprisonment plus two years of probation imposed on the respondent for the attempted murder of his estranged wife.

The respondent had intentionally driven his vehicle into his wife's vehicle.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence unfit, noting that the appropriate sentence would have been six years imprisonment less credit for time served, given the domestic context and the planned nature of the attack.

However, because the respondent had already been released and there was no evidence of further misconduct, the Court declined to re-incarcerate him, instead allowing the appeal only to increase the probation period from two to three years.