Joseph W. Ziemba

An appellant sought to appeal a conviction for careless driving causing bodily harm and a Charter s. 11(b) application dismissal prior to sentencing.

The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal, as a trial is not legally concluded until sentencing, and the appeal filing clock commences at that point.

The court emphasized that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent and that procedural guides do not create statutory authority.

The defendant brought a motion to amend its Statement of Defence to explicitly plead self-defence, after all evidence had been heard at trial but before final submissions.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing prejudice due to a new theory and lack of opportunity for cross-examination or recalling experts.

The court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not prejudiced as the issue of self-defence had been inferentially raised in the original pleading, explicitly stated in the pre-trial memo, and discussed in the defendant's opening statement and during cross-examination of the defendant.

The court concluded that the plaintiff's counsel was well aware of the defence throughout the proceedings.

In a personal injury claim arising from an alleged assault, the defendant sought to introduce eight surveillance videos of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing irrelevance and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion.

The court admitted three videos (#1, #5, and #8), finding them relevant to the toxic relationship between the parties, the plaintiff's credibility, and the contextual circumstances leading to the alleged assault.

The remaining five videos were excluded due to lack of relevance.

The court also determined that the admitted videos did not constitute the tort of intrusion upon seclusion, as there was no reasonable expectation of privacy for actions directed at the defendant's home or observable by other neighbours.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving party sought costs of over $117,000 inclusive of disbursements.

The responding party argued the amount was excessive and requested either no costs or a substantially reduced award.

The court held that the successful moving party was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis but reduced the claimed hours, hourly rate, and disbursements to reflect work attributable to former co-defendants and the relative simplicity of the case.

Costs were fixed at a significantly lower amount after recalculating reasonable hours and rates.