John S. Poupore

The accused brought a motion to reopen a previously dismissed Charter application challenging the validity of a search warrant under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The motion arose after a mistrial in a jury trial when the Crown disclosed a production order related to a seized cell phone.

The defence argued the new information might have assisted in challenging the information to obtain the search warrant.

Applying s. 653.1(1) of the Criminal Code, the court held that prior rulings remain binding after a mistrial unless it would not be in the interests of justice.

The defence failed to demonstrate how the cell phone information would have been relevant to the prior Charter ruling, and the application to reopen the motion was dismissed.

The parties appeared self-represented seeking to resolve the amount of arrears owed for child and spousal support under a prior order.

After reviewing the agreed income figures and the payment history reported by the Family Responsibility Office, the court calculated that the payor had technically overpaid support relative to guideline amounts.

However, the court found the payor had unreasonably delayed bringing the application and declined to grant any credit for the overpayment.

The court varied the arrears of child and spousal support to zero as of December 31, 2012 and set ongoing support at a nominal amount due to the payor’s current lack of income.

A high‑conflict family law trial addressing custody, access, and child support following separation.

The applicant sought sole custody while the respondent sought custody with equal access.

The court found evidence of controlling and abusive conduct by the respondent and determined that granting him final decision‑making authority would not be in the children’s best interests under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act.

Sole custody was granted to the applicant with structured and generous access to the respondent, together with a detailed holiday schedule.

The court also found the respondent to be voluntarily under‑employed and ordered ongoing child support, arrears payment, and annual financial disclosure.

The plaintiffs brought materials seeking court approval of an infant settlement arising from civil litigation involving multiple defendants and a hospital.

The court invited submissions regarding the characterization of future care payments to the parents, whether settlement materials should be sealed, and whether the solicitor’s affidavit should be sealed and service waived.

The court held that the possible taxation of future care payments is a matter for the Canada Revenue Agency and not determinative for the approval motion.

Applying the open court principle and exercising parens patria jurisdiction, the court declined to grant a sealing order over the settlement documents.

However, the court permitted plaintiffs’ counsel to refile a substitute affidavit after service on opposing counsel.

Following a successful summary judgment motion dismissing the action as statute‑barred, the defendants sought costs.

The plaintiffs argued costs should be denied because the court had found the defendants committed a fraud or misrepresentation in the underlying real estate transaction.

The court held that, despite sympathy for the plaintiffs, the action had been commenced outside the applicable limitation period and should not have been brought so late.

Costs therefore followed the result, though the defendants’ claimed partial indemnity costs were reduced.

The court fixed partial indemnity fees at 66 percent of the full indemnity amount, with HST applied and disbursements allowed as claimed.

The plaintiffs commenced an action alleging misrepresentation in connection with the purchase of a residential property, claiming the vendors falsely represented that the property had no flooding, water issues, or prior renovations.

Evidence showed that the purchasers discovered moisture, rot, and structural concerns within the first two years after closing.

The defendants raised a limitation defence under the Limitations Act.

The court held that the purchasers had sufficient knowledge of material facts to trigger discoverability well before the action was issued, and that reasonable inquiry would have revealed the alleged misrepresentation earlier.

The action was therefore statute‑barred.