Russell Raikes

The applicant father sought costs on a full indemnity basis following a successful interim motion for custody and access, claiming the respondent mother acted unreasonably.

The respondent argued she acted in the child's best interests and that the claimed costs were excessive.

The court found no reason to deviate from the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs, but rejected the claim for full indemnity costs, finding the respondent's conduct did not warrant it.

The court determined the motion was straightforward and fixed costs at $2,500 plus HST.

The accused was arrested without a warrant for possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking based on information provided by a confidential informant.

Following her arrest, she handed over methamphetamine to police.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the evidence, arguing the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds.

The court dismissed the application, finding the informant's tip was sufficiently reliable and detailed to provide reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest.

The court further held that even if the arrest was unlawful, the evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was successful, she sought substantial indemnity costs of $9,949 plus HST and disbursements.

The respondent did not make costs submissions.

The court found that while the respondent was unsuccessful, his position on equalization was not unreasonable given the unusual circumstances.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and fixed costs at $3,500 inclusive, payable by the respondent at a rate of $300 per month.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a commercial fishing corporation on four strict liability charges relating to inaccurate logbooks and Daily Catch Reports submitted by its vessel captain.

The trial judge had acquitted the corporation on the basis of due diligence, finding there was little more the owner could have done from shore.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by applying an incorrect standard of care and failing to consider what a proper system of compliance would entail.

The court found the corporation's blind trust in a captain with a known history of non-compliance did not amount to due diligence.

Convictions were entered and the matter remitted for sentencing.

The accused, jointly charged with unlawful confinement and aggravated assault, brought applications to sever counts on the indictment.

One accused was additionally charged with attempted murder and several counts of possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused argued that trying the drug charges together with the violent offences would cause severe prejudice and propensity reasoning.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the drug charges provided the context and motive for the violent offences, as the victim was a competing drug dealer.

The court held that the interests of justice favoured a single trial, and any potential prejudice could be addressed through proper jury instructions.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking an advance interim payment of $22,000 for expert valuation costs, disclosure of various corporate financial documents, and an order for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court dismissed the request for a section 30 assessment due to an insufficient evidentiary foundation.

The court ordered partial disclosure of the requested financial documents, limiting the scope based on proportionality and the burden on the respondent's business.

Finally, the court ordered the respondent to pay an advance of $10,000 under Rule 24(12) to assist the applicant with expert valuation costs, finding the requested $22,000 excessive.