Frank M. Falconi

Ms. Smith appealed her conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content exceeding the legal limit, alleging breaches of her Charter rights under ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The trial judge had rejected her evidence regarding these breaches and found no Charter violations.

On appeal, the court upheld the trial judge's findings, concluding that the trial judge properly evaluated the conflicting evidence and that the officer had reasonable grounds for the stop and ASD demand.

The court also affirmed that the right to counsel is suspended during a valid highway traffic stop and that Ms. Smith did not request specific counsel at the police station.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The Municipality of West Nipissing sought partial indemnity costs after successfully obtaining an injunction against the respondents for operating an unauthorized automobile repair shop.

The respondents opposed the costs, arguing the matter was not complex or important, and that the claimed costs were excessive.

The court found the matter important to the Municipality and upheld the full amount of partial indemnity costs claimed, addressing objections regarding excessive hours, computer research fees, photocopy charges, long-distance calls, courier costs, mileage for out-of-town counsel, and law clerk fees.

The Municipality of West Nipissing sought an injunction to restrain the respondents from operating an automobile repair shop, alleging contravention of a zoning by-law.

The respondents claimed legal non-conforming use.

The court found that the respondents failed to establish that an auto repair shop was operating at the property when the prohibiting by-law was enacted, as prior repairs were incidental to a towing business.

Furthermore, they failed to prove continuous operation of an auto repair shop after the towing business moved.

Consequently, the current use was not a legal non-conforming use, and the injunction was granted.

The parties lived in a common-law relationship.

After separation, the plaintiff commenced a Small Claims Court action for unjust enrichment, which was administratively dismissed after the defendant argued the court lacked jurisdiction.

The plaintiff then commenced a Superior Court action for unjust enrichment and constructive trust.

The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was frivolous, barred by res judicata due to the Small Claims Court dismissal, or that there was no genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that an administrative dismissal is not a decision on the merits and does not trigger res judicata.

The court also found a genuine issue for trial regarding the plaintiff's contributions to the property.

The Attorney General sought forfeiture of $10,000 seized from an individual during an arrest under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001.

The court considered circumstantial evidence including the manner in which the cash was bundled, the circumstances of the seizure late at night, the respondent’s criminal record, and inconsistent explanations regarding the source and purpose of the funds.

Applying the balance of probabilities standard, the court found the respondent’s explanation of savings from employment not credible and insufficient to rebut the inference that the funds were connected to unlawful activity, particularly drug trafficking.

The court held the money constituted proceeds of unlawful activity, an instrument of unlawful activity, or both.

The application for forfeiture was granted.