Joseph Dart

The applicant brought an application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at a hotel room, arguing a violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The police had relied on information from an anonymous caller, two confidential informants, and surveillance observations to obtain the warrant.

The court applied the Debot criteria and found the informant information to be compelling, credible, and corroborated.

The court concluded that the issuing justice had sufficient reasonable and probable grounds to issue the warrant and dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to substitute the wife of the defendant driver as a party defendant on the basis of misnomer, after discovering she was the registered owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

The proposed defendant opposed the motion, arguing her vehicle was not involved and citing delay.

The court found the pleading clearly intended to sue the owner of the vehicle and that the factual dispute over which vehicle was involved could not be resolved on the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendant.

The plaintiff in a personal injury action moved to strike the jury notice because pandemic-related public health restrictions made it unlikely a civil jury trial could proceed as scheduled in June 2021.

The defendant opposed, preferring to adjourn the trial until a jury was available.

The court noted that local conditions in Kingston meant no civil jury trials would be held in 2021, and an adjournment would delay the trial until at least April 2022, causing prejudice to the plaintiff.

The court conditionally struck the jury notice, ordering that if the case is called during the June 2021 sittings, it will proceed without a jury, but if it must be adjourned due to lack of judicial resources, the jury notice may be restored if a jury trial is available at the rescheduled date.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff, who resides in Ottawa, to attend a neuropsychological independent medical examination in Mississauga.

The plaintiff objected, providing medical opinions that the 450 km travel would be medically detrimental to her recovery from a traumatic brain injury.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while a defendant generally has the right to choose their medical expert, the choice must not be unreasonably inconvenient or compromise the plaintiff's medical well-being, especially when alternative experts are available closer to the plaintiff's residence.