H. MacLeod-Beliveau

The plaintiffs brought a motion for directions to determine the order of examinations for discovery.

The defendant insurer had served an affidavit of documents that was two years out of date and omitted the relevant insurance policy, claiming priority to examine the plaintiffs first.

The court found the insurer's affidavit of documents was deficient and a nullity, meaning it had not preserved its right to examine first.

The court ordered the insurer to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, struck the insurer's notice of examination and certificate of non-attendance, and ordered that the plaintiffs were entitled to examine the defendants first.

The parties settled the issue of costs following a previous endorsement.

The respondent municipality was ordered to pay the applicant fixed costs in the amount of $20,313.73.

The applicant, who held a registered easement over a property used as a common area by cottagers, sought a declaration to void a municipal tax sale of the property.

The City had proceeded with the sale after the registered owners failed to pay taxes for years.

The applicant argued the City's treasurer failed to exercise his discretion to stop the sale, which would prejudice the cottagers' use of the land.

The court found the treasurer failed to exercise his broad discretion to ensure fairness, rendering the process unreasonable.

The tax sale was declared void, but the court declined to order the City to provide notice of future tax sales to easement holders, as the Municipal Act does not require it.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code seeking to vacate a detention order made by a justice of the peace.

The accused argued that the justice erred in finding he had no community ties, misapprehended financial evidence from proposed sureties, and failed to consider a prior Superior Court decision releasing him on related charges in another jurisdiction.

The reviewing judge held that a bail review is a hybrid process involving both review and limited fresh evidence but requires deference to the original decision unless legal or factual error is shown.

Given the strong Crown case, extensive criminal record including breaches of recognizance, lack of credible sureties, and evidence suggesting access to funds and a risk of reoffending, the court found detention justified on both primary and secondary grounds.

The prior bail decision relating to different charges and evidentiary records was not binding.

Following a successful summary judgment ordering the defendant to vacate the plaintiff’s residence, the court addressed claims for aggravated and punitive damages, pre‑judgment interest, and costs.

The defendant had remained in the plaintiff’s home for several months without legal entitlement and failed to vacate despite receiving notice of trespass and funds to assist with relocation.

The court found the defendant’s conduct legally wrong but not malicious or outrageous enough to justify aggravated or punitive damages.

However, the defendant’s continued occupation forced the plaintiff to commence a civil action and bring a summary judgment motion.

The court therefore dismissed the damages claim but awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs.

The 74-year-old accused was convicted of incest, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving his sister, niece, and great-niece over a 46-year period.

The Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the gravity of the offences, the breach of trust, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 3 years in penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year weapons prohibition, a 10-year s. 161 prohibition, a DNA order, and a lifetime SOIRA order.