Gibson

The applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis following a successful motion regarding the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent, a self-represented litigant, did not provide costs submissions.

The court noted the respondent's highly inappropriate and abusive behaviour during the hearing, which required police presence to maintain security.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and the principles regarding self-represented litigants, the court held that self-representation does not grant a licence for bad behaviour.

The court awarded the applicant substantial indemnity costs fixed at $10,800.

The Crown brought a s. 521 bail review application to vacate a release order made by a Justice of the Peace.

The Justice of the Peace had released the accused without a bail hearing because the original signed information was not physically present in court, despite a signed warrant being before the court.

The Superior Court held that the Justice of the Peace erred in principle and acted in excess of jurisdiction, as the existence of a signed warrant compels the conclusion that a signed information exists.

The release order was vacated.

Conducting a new bail hearing, the court released the accused on a $5,000 recognizance with a surety and conditions, noting the complainant had recanted.

The offender was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm and three counts of breach of probation after attacking his cellmate in a correctional centre over a dispute about food.

The victim suffered fractured ribs, cuts requiring stitches, and bruising.

The court found the custodial setting to be an aggravating factor, as the victim was defenceless in a confined space.

The offender was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment for the assault, less 2.5 months of pre-sentence credit, and concurrent 6-month sentences for the breaches, followed by three years of probation.

The applicants sought a declaration that their automobile insurer had a duty to defend them in a personal injury action arising from an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) accident.

The insurer denied coverage, arguing the ATV was an off-road vehicle driven on private property and not an automobile under the Insurance Act.

The court found that the underlying statement of claim contained alternative allegations that the applicants owned the ATV but were not occupiers of the property where the accident occurred.

If proven, these facts would mean the ATV was a newly acquired automobile covered by the policy.

The court granted the application, holding the insurer had a duty to defend.

The applicants sought a declaration that their default judgment against the respondent survived his bankruptcy discharge under s. 178(1)(d) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The judgment arose after the respondent's real estate lawyer mistakenly paid him sale proceeds that were supposed to be held in trust to discharge a mortgage.

The respondent misappropriated the funds, spent them on personal items, and later declared bankruptcy without listing the applicants as creditors.

The court granted the application, finding that the respondent acted in a fiduciary capacity regarding the mistakenly received trust funds and that his misappropriation meant the debt survived his bankruptcy.