Appeared as counsel in 9 cases (2013–2024)
5 total
The court granted the plaintiffs leave to file a supplementary affidavit but refused to compel ESDC to produce witnesses or unredacted files.
This decision addresses several motions between the parties, including undertakings and refusals arising from cross-examinations, a request for Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) to produce certain files and employees as witnesses, and whether the plaintiffs should be granted leave to file a supplementary affidavit in the context of a summary judgment motion.
The court discusses the privacy and production issues related to ESDC records, the discretion of the Minister under the Department of Employment and Social Development Act, and the test for granting leave to file supplementary affidavit material.
The court also rules on costs and sets out principles for undertakings and refusals.
Lawyer ordered to personally pay 50% of $11,242 costs award for egregious conduct during examination.
The moving party sought costs following an oral ruling that granted an adjournment to seek directions due to the responding party's lawyer's behaviour during an examination.
The court fixed costs at $11,242, including costs thrown away.
Finding that the lawyer's conduct—passing a note to his client during the examination and unilaterally taking a break for a full discussion—crossed the line, the court ordered the lawyer to personally pay 50% of the costs award.
Successful applicants recovered substantial costs after beating their settlement offers.
This decision determined the costs of a successful application concerning a right to construct and use a dock at the end of a right-of-way over the respondents' property.
The court rejected the respondents' submission that the applicants were the authors of their own misfortune and found the dispute, while not document-heavy, was uniquely complex and factually intricate.
Applying Rule 57.01(1) and the presumptive consequences under Rule 49.10(1), the court held that the applicants' offers to settle were genuine compromise offers and were as favourable as or more favourable than the ultimate remedy obtained.
The court declined to enhance costs based on alleged delay or litigation conduct by respondents' counsel, but awarded substantial costs in a reduced amount.
Motion to set aside minutes of settlement regarding supervised parenting time and drug testing dismissed.
The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to remove the respondent father's counsel, set aside interim minutes of settlement regarding parenting time, and expand her parenting time.
The mother argued the minutes of settlement should be set aside because she believed cannabis use was exempted from the drug testing requirements.
The court dismissed the motion, finding the minutes of settlement were clear and unambiguous in requiring supervised parenting time if the mother tested positive for cannabis.
The court ordered that parenting time continue in accordance with the interim minutes of settlement.
The court vacated a detention order and granted strict conditional bail to an accused facing serious drug trafficking charges, finding the original justice erred in law.
The accused, Marvin Watson, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained for serious drug trafficking and money laundering charges.
The court found errors in law in the original Justice of the Peace's decision regarding the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, and the failure to consider s. 493.2 of the Code.
The court conducted a de novo bail hearing, considering the strong Crown case, the gravity of the offences, and the proposed strict bail plan with multiple sureties and GPS monitoring.
The court concluded that the applicant discharged his onus on all three grounds (primary, secondary, and tertiary) and ordered his release under stringent conditions, including house arrest and no access to communication devices.
