Glithero

Following the settlement of an application under the Substitute Decisions Act regarding the property and personal care of their mother, the parties sought costs.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs from the mother's assets, while the respondents sought costs from the applicant.

The court found that the applicant had acted unreasonably, commenced unnecessary litigation, and rejected reasonable settlement offers.

The court ordered the applicant to personally pay $40,000 in costs to the respondents on a substantial indemnity basis, and limited the costs payable from the mother's assets to only those portions of the legal work that actually benefited her.

The applicant, charged with first degree murder, sought to vary a s. 516(2) non-communication order to remove his common-law spouse, a material witness for the Crown, from the list of prohibited persons.

The applicant argued the order unfairly interfered with their relationship and their intention to marry.

The court dismissed the application, finding strong evidence that the spouse had previously expressed fear of the applicant, sought police protection, and that the applicant had a history of threatening and counseling the murder of other witnesses.

The court held that the societal interest in protecting witnesses and ensuring a fair trial justified the continued non-communication order.

The applicant applied for bail pending his retrial for first-degree murder.

He had previously been convicted, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial due to an error in refusing severance from his co-accused.

The court assessed the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

Finding that the applicant had no criminal record, strong community roots, a comprehensive release plan with six sureties, and that the Crown's case was not overwhelming, the court concluded that detention was not justified.

Bail was granted.