Harneet Singh

This trial concerned charges of unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, unauthorized possession of a restricted firearm in a motor vehicle, and possession of cocaine against two defendants.

The court applied principles of constructive possession and circumstantial evidence.

Ivor Shawn Young was found guilty of all charges, as the court concluded that the black backpack containing the gun and cocaine was between his legs, readily accessible, and the presence of a large amount of cash on him supported the inference of drug trafficking.

Justin Dyer was found not guilty of all charges, as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew about the cocaine or the gun in the black backpack, despite his possession of cannabis in a separate backpack.

This is an appeal from a judgment ordering the sale of a property under the Partition Act.

The Court of Appeal addressed a preliminary jurisdictional issue, noting that section 7 of the Partition Act stipulates appeals from orders made under the Act lie to the Divisional Court.

Despite the appellants' argument that the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction due to intertwined issues, and the respondents' lack of objection, the court held that parties cannot confer jurisdiction by agreement.

The Court found the judgment squarely fell under the Partition Act, and therefore, the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction.

The appeal was quashed, and the appellants were ordered to pay costs.

The moving parties sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal from a lower court order.

The motion was brought six days after the deadline.

The court applied the four-factor test for granting an extension of time: intention to appeal within the period, reasonable explanation for delay, arguable merits, and lack of prejudice to the responding parties.

The court found that the moving parties had a strong contemplation of appeal, a short and reasonable delay, and arguable issues regarding beneficial interests in the property.

No prejudice was found as the original order for sale was not automatically stayed.

The extension was granted on strict terms, including deadlines for filing and perfecting the appeal, and expedited hearing.

Despite granting the extension, the court awarded costs to the responding parties due to deficiencies in the moving parties' motion materials.

The applicants brought a motion for leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) regarding a jointly purchased investment property.

The applicants argued that the motion had already been settled via email correspondence between counsel.

The court found that the email exchange constituted a binding settlement agreement to consent to the CPL order while reserving costs.

Alternatively, the court held that a CPL was justified on the merits, as there was a triable issue regarding the parties' respective interests in the property.

The motion was granted.