J. McNamara

Following a motion where the defendant was completely successful, the court considered written submissions on costs.

The defendant sought costs based on a prior settlement offer made to the plaintiff.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a partial indemnity scale, noting the matter was not overly complex and the conduct of the parties was not exemplary, fixing costs at $4,268.82 plus HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment in a civil action alleging assault, battery, excessive force, malicious prosecution, and Charter breaches arising from an incident at the Senate of Canada.

The plaintiff relied solely on reasons from a prior criminal trial in which he had been acquitted of charges related to the same incident, arguing that relitigation would constitute an abuse of process under the principles in Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79.

The court held that the defendants had not been parties to the criminal proceeding and had not had the opportunity to defend themselves or advance defences such as parliamentary privilege.

The court found that allowing the defendants to defend the civil claim would not amount to an abuse of process and that genuine issues requiring a trial remained.

Family law trial addressing custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization following the breakdown of a short marriage.

The respondent claimed a beneficial interest in a residential property held in the applicant’s name pursuant to a declaration of trust for her mother and alleged the property constituted a matrimonial home or, alternatively, that he was entitled to compensation through unjust enrichment.

The court rejected both arguments, finding the property was an investment owned beneficially by the applicant’s mother and never occupied as a matrimonial home.

The respondent failed to prove financial contributions sufficient to establish deprivation for unjust enrichment.

Sole custody of the child was granted to the applicant with supervised access to the respondent and guideline child support based on the respondent’s income.

The appellant appealed her conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content over 80 milligrams.

She argued the trial judge erred in dismissing her section 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay and in finding that her breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

The summary conviction appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's characterization of the delay periods or his conclusion that the prejudice was minimal.

The court also upheld the finding that the breath samples, taken one hour and 36 minutes after the vehicle was stopped, were obtained within a reasonably prompt timeframe.

The appeal was dismissed.