2 total
Accused found fit; defence failed to rebut presumption of fitness to stand trial.
The accused applied for a declaration that he was unfit to stand trial on three counts of dangerous driving causing death following a high-speed motor vehicle accident that resulted in the deaths of three passengers and caused him a traumatic brain injury.
The defence relied on expert evidence asserting that the accused suffered from frontal lobe dementia and severe cognitive impairment rendering him unable to participate meaningfully in the trial process.
Crown experts concluded that the accused retained sufficient cognitive capacity and that test results suggested malingering.
Applying the “limited cognitive capacity” test from R. v. Taylor, as affirmed in R. v. Whittle and R. v. Morrissey, the court held that the defence failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused was unfit.
The presumption of fitness therefore remained and the application was dismissed.
Settlement enforced despite unsigned minutes where counsel’s email confirmed acceptance of essential terms.
The applicant sought enforcement of an alleged settlement agreement arising from a commercial dispute between advertising companies.
The respondent argued that no binding settlement existed because minutes of settlement were never executed and it had only agreed to certain terms of the proposal.
The court held that a binding settlement arises where parties agree on essential terms and demonstrate mutual intention to create legal relations, even if final documentation has not been signed.
The exchange of communications between counsel constituted a clear offer and acceptance of settlement terms.
The application was granted and the respondent was ordered to execute the agreed Minutes of Settlement and Release.
