Michelle O'Bonsawin

The Crown appealed from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal's decision acquitting the respondent of refusing to comply with a breath demand.

Police had entered a private driveway to investigate an impaired driving complaint, found the accused asleep in a running truck, knocked on the window without response, then opened the truck door and detected a strong odour of alcohol.

The majority held that police had an implied licence to enter the driveway and knock on the truck window, but exceeded that licence by opening the door, constituting an unreasonable search under s. 8 of the Charter.

However, the evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) given society's strong interest in prosecuting the serious offence.

Four justices dissented, finding that the police exceeded the implied licence from the moment they entered the property with the intent to gather evidence, and that the evidence should be excluded.

The plaintiffs, former tenants of the defendant, brought an action for unjust enrichment seeking compensation for extensive renovations and the construction of a large garage on the defendant's rental property.

The defendant counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiffs left the property in disrepair and the garage incomplete.

The Superior Court of Justice found the plaintiffs' evidence credible and established that the defendant was unjustly enriched by the improvements.

The court also found an oral agreement existed for the defendant to reimburse the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' claim was granted, awarding them $42,580 in damages, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant, acting as substitute decision-maker for her husband, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board regarding his treatment plan.

Before the appeal could be decided, the husband passed away.

The court applied the test for mootness from Borowski and determined that the appeal was moot because there was no longer a live controversy between the parties.

The court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the moot appeal, finding that the issues were highly fact-specific and raised no questions of public importance.

The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant child protection agency brought a motion for contempt against the respondent mother for refusing to comply with a temporary order granting the father supervised access that could transition to unsupervised access at the agency's discretion.

The mother refused to allow visits at the father's home despite investigations into abuse allegations being closed without charges.

The court found the mother in contempt, as the order was clear, her disobedience was deliberate, and the contempt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also modified the prior order to implement a gradual schedule for unsupervised access at the father's home.

The accused was found guilty of criminal harassment for sending threatening messages to the victim via WhatsApp.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence requested an absolute discharge to avoid negative impacts on the accused's permanent residency application.

The court noted the accused's lack of remorse but acknowledged his compliance with bail conditions.

Balancing the principles of sentencing and the potential immigration consequences, the court granted a conditional discharge with two years of probation and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

During a criminal trial, the trial judge noted a discrepancy between the dates of the offence in the indictment and the evidence presented, and requested written submissions from the parties on the issue.

The defence subsequently brought a motion for a mistrial, arguing that the judge's intervention raised a reasonable apprehension of bias by allegedly suggesting the Crown reopen its case to amend the indictment.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the motion, finding that the judge merely demonstrated vigilance by noting the discrepancy and requesting submissions, which did not constitute bias or an appearance of bias.