Harriet E. Sachs

During a criminal trial for multiple convenience store robberies, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict after the close of the Crown’s case regarding two of the alleged robberies.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to surveillance footage and clothing similar to items worn by a robber.

The court applied the directed verdict test from R. v. Monteleone and the circumstantial evidence principles from R. v. Arcuri.

The judge held that the similarities in clothing and general appearance were too generic and common to support a reasonable inference that the accused was the perpetrator.

Directed verdicts of not guilty were entered on the two counts.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving party sought costs of over $117,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The responding party argued the amount was excessive and requested either no costs or a substantially reduced award.

The court held that the successful moving party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis but reduced the claimed hours, hourly rate, and disbursements to reflect work attributable to former co-defendants and the relative simplicity of the case.

Costs were fixed at a significantly lower amount after recalculating reasonable hours and rates.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order granting advance costs to plaintiffs in treaty land entitlement litigation involving the size of a reserve under Treaty 9.

The motion judge had found the plaintiffs met the Supreme Court of Canada test for advance costs and ordered the costs initially shared between the federal and provincial defendants, subject to later adjustment.

The court held there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s application of the three‑part test for advance costs or her discretionary decision to award them.

The allocation of costs between the governmental defendants was reasonable at this preliminary stage.

Leave to appeal was denied because the issues were fact‑driven and did not raise matters of public importance or legal development.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment dismissing a claim for breach of confidence.

The plaintiff alleged that information obtained during a visit to its premises was confidential and later misused by a competitor.

Applying the elements of breach of confidence from Lac Minerals Ltd. v. International Corona Resources Ltd., the court found the information—such as pricing, room layout, staffing, and facilities—was either publicly available or trivial and therefore not confidential.

The court further found no evidence that the defendant used or relied upon the information in its business operations.

Summary judgment was granted and the claim against the moving defendant was dismissed.