Healey

The applicant, charged with sexual assault and related offences, applied for certiorari to quash a DNA warrant issued under s. 487.05 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the affiant's evidence regarding the complainant's identification of him from wedding photographs and social media was speculative and tainted.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the issuing justice had sufficient credible evidence, including the complainant's identification and the presence of male DNA on her underwear, to form reasonable grounds to believe the applicant committed the offences and that his DNA would provide evidence.

The defendant brought a request under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the plaintiff's action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

The plaintiff, who was self-represented, alleged that the defendant lawyer was involved in a conspiracy with federal defendants to sabotage his case and have him assaulted.

The court found the allegations to be completely devoid of reality and noted that the plaintiff had sued the defendant in at least four other actions that were similarly dismissed.

The court invoked Rule 1.04 to permit the dismissal of the action against a single defendant under Rule 2.1.01, and dismissed the claim against the moving party.

The plaintiff vendor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant purchaser for failing to close a real estate transaction.

The purchaser had entered into an unconditional agreement of purchase and sale but failed to close because she could not sell her own property in a cooling market.

The vendor relisted and sold the property for a lower price and sued for the difference and carrying costs.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the purchaser breached the agreement and the vendor reasonably mitigated her damages by reselling the property at fair market value.

The defendants moved to strike out several paragraphs of the plaintiff's statement of claim under Rules 21.01(1)(b), 25.06, and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action involved an alleged breach of contract regarding the operation and sale of a pizza franchise.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, finding that the claim asserted a well-recognized cause of action for breach of contract and was not frivolous or vexatious.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to compel documentary production was also dismissed as premature.

Costs of $4,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendants were successful on a motion requiring the plaintiff to post security for costs in the amount of $130,000.

The defendants subsequently sought costs of that motion on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $26,530.69.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01(1), noting the complexity of the motion and the plaintiff's unsuccessful res judicata argument.

After stepping back to assess what is fair and reasonable, the court fixed the defendants' costs of the motion at $23,000 inclusive.

During a criminal trial, the Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to allow a witness to testify via Skype.

The witness was unable to attend court due to a high-risk pregnancy.

The defence objected, arguing the anticipated evidence was vague and bordered on bad character evidence.

The court found the evidence relevant to the issue of opportunity and held that trial fairness would not be undermined by the use of technology.

The application was granted, permitting the witness to testify remotely.

The accused, charged with criminal harassment, brought a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal.

The charge arose from an incident where the accused allegedly followed and watched a 13-year-old girl on her way to school, having previously followed her and a friend weeks earlier.

The court amended the indictment to conform to the evidence regarding the date of the offence.

The court dismissed the motion for a directed verdict, finding that there was sufficient evidence of 'watching' under s. 264(2)(c) of the Criminal Code upon which a properly instructed jury could reasonably convict.

The Crown brought a motion to admit a 911 call placed by a complainant into evidence for the truth of its contents, arguing it fell under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule or the principled approach.

The court found the call inherently reliable but excluded it because its admission was not necessary, as the complainant was available to testify and had given a police statement containing the same facts.

The court also noted the recording's highly emotional tone would be overly prejudicial to the accused.

The accused, charged with armed robbery, brought a Charter application seeking to exclude a statement made to police, alleging breaches of his s. 10(a) and 10(b) rights.

The court found no s. 10(a) breach, as the accused knew the date and place of the robbery.

A s. 10(b) breach occurred when police questioned the accused at the roadside and seized his clothing before he could consult duty counsel.

However, the delay in facilitating access to counsel during the booking process was reasonable.

Under s. 24(2), the roadside statements and clothing were excluded, but the main interview statement was admitted as it was voluntary and followed a 'fresh start' caution.

The accused, charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and criminal harassment involving six different complainants, applied to sever counts 7 and 8 from the indictment.

The Crown applied to admit similar act evidence across the counts to assist in identifying the perpetrator.

The court held that the similar act evidence application was premature and should be decided during the trial.

The court dismissed the severance application, finding a strong factual nexus between the incidents and concluding that the benefits of a single trial outweighed the risk of prejudice to the accused.

The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the accused to police following his arrest for sexual assault.

The accused argued his rights under ss. 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter were violated because he was not fully informed of the reasons for his detention, including that he was a suspect in several other similar sexual assaults and that the complainant was a minor.

The court found that the police failed to inform the accused of the full extent of his jeopardy, depriving him of the ability to make an informed choice about whether to speak to police or to obtain meaningful legal advice.

The statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The plaintiff suffered a severe traumatic brain injury in a multi-vehicle highway collision.

He lost control of his vehicle after being cut off by an unidentified driver, struck the median, and was subsequently T-boned by the defendant's vehicle.

The court found the unidentified driver 70% liable and the defendant 30% liable for following too closely.

The plaintiff was awarded over $3.2 million in damages, primarily for future care costs.

The plaintiff's claim against his own insurer for unidentified motorist coverage was dismissed because the identified defendant was found partially liable.

The plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident case moved to admit his out-of-court statements to police for substantive use, as he suffered from post-traumatic amnesia and could not testify to the events.

The court admitted the statements under the principled approach to hearsay, finding them necessary and sufficiently reliable, corroborated by an independent witness.

The court also excluded the investigating officer's written commentary in the accident report, ruling it was inadmissible opinion evidence beyond the officer's expertise.

Following a jury trial, the accused was found guilty of four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking.

One week after the jury was discharged, a juror sent a letter to the court expressing doubts about her verdict and describing feeling pressured during deliberations.

The accused applied for a mistrial based on this letter.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the contents of the letter were inadmissible under the common law rule of judicial secrecy, as they related to the internal deliberation process rather than extrinsic influences.

Furthermore, the court held it was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to declare a mistrial after the verdict had been recorded and the jury discharged.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike three jury notices prior to the commencement of a trial involving a complex motor vehicle accident resulting in catastrophic impairments.

The plaintiff argued that the anticipated evidence, including competing expert opinions and the plaintiff's brain injury, would be too complex for a jury.

The court dismissed the motion as premature, applying the 'wait and see' approach, holding that it was speculative to determine the complexity of the evidence before it was presented at trial.

The moving parties (the Caribbean defendants) sought an order under Rule 57.07 directing that the costs of the action, previously awarded in their favour in the amount of $84,000, be made payable personally by the plaintiff's former lawyer on a joint and several basis with the plaintiff.

The underlying action had been dismissed as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on prior rulings.

The court found that the lawyer's conduct in drafting and advancing a vexatious claim with scandalous and unsupported allegations caused costs to be incurred unnecessarily.

The court granted the motion, ordering the lawyer to pay the $84,000 costs jointly and severally with the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought an action against 39 defendants, including lawyers, police officers, and private investigators, seeking $20 million in damages for various torts including abuse of process, negligent investigation, and conspiracy.

The defendants moved to strike the claim.

The court found the action was a collateral attack on previous court orders finding the plaintiff in contempt of court.

The court dismissed the action in its entirety as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, and alternatively struck the claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.

Substantial costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding the sale of a marina property.

The defendant opposed, claiming a set-off and counterclaim for damages resulting from the collapse of boat slips due to snow load, alleging the plaintiff failed to maintain and insure the property while in possession.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the Minutes of Settlement contained a full release and imposed no obligation on the plaintiff to maintain or insure the property for the defendant's benefit.

The defendant was ordered to pay the $500,000 owed under the settlement.

Following a 14-year marriage, the parties proceeded to trial to resolve issues of child support, spousal support, and equalization.

The court determined the respondent's income, accounting for bonuses and a voluntary job change, and imputed $20,000 in income to the applicant, recognizing her long absence from the workforce to care for the children.

The court awarded retroactive and ongoing child support, as well as indefinite spousal support in the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines to address compensatory and non-compensatory needs.

The applicant's claim to exclude a $10,000 inheritance from her net family property was dismissed, as the court found the funds were used for family landscaping, resulting in an equalization payment of $34,659 to the applicant.

The defendant, the lead driver in a three-car rear-end collision, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claim against her.

The court reviewed the competing versions of the accident and found that under any scenario, the moving party was rear-ended after stopping for a turning vehicle.

Applying the presumption of fault for following vehicles, the court found no evidence of negligence by the moving party.

The motion was granted, the claim against the moving party was dismissed, and costs of $17,000 were awarded.