K.E. Cullin

The moving party sought costs against one of the respondents personally following a motion for directions regarding the appointment of an estate trustee.

The responding parties sought their costs from the moving party.

The court found that while the moving party was an inappropriate candidate for estate trustee, his application was necessary to advance the administration of the estate.

The court ordered the moving party's costs to be paid from the estate on a substantial indemnity basis.

The responding parties' costs were also ordered to be paid from the estate, but on a partial indemnity basis, as they failed to propose an alternate candidate.

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained on charges including drug trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime, and fleeing police.

She was arrested while on release for similar offences.

The reviewing judge found no new admissible evidence to justify a review, noting that opinions from a judicial pre-trial are privileged and not evidence.

The court also found no errors of law or inappropriate reasoning in the justice of the peace's decision to detain the applicant on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The bail review application was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the lawyers and a consultant acting for a corporation in which he is a minority shareholder, alleging negligence and enabling oppression.

The court initiated a Rule 2.1 review to determine if the claim was frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process.

The court found that while the plaintiff may eventually have a viable claim depending on the outcome of his main oppression action, the current claim against the corporation's professionals was premature and an abuse of process.

The action was dismissed without prejudice, with leave required to recommence after the main action concludes.

The appellant appealed his conviction for sexual assault, arguing the trial judge provided insufficient reasons, failed to properly consider expert toxicology evidence regarding the complainant's intoxication and capacity to consent, and erred in relying on equivocal post-offence conduct.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge failed to explain her pathway to concluding the complainant was unconscious and incapable of consenting, failed to address gaps in the expert evidence, and improperly jumped to an inference of guilt based on post-offence conduct.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The moving party, the separated spouse of the deceased, sought to be appointed as estate trustee.

The respondents, the deceased's son and common-law partner, objected to the appointment.

The court found that the moving party had an irreconcilable conflict of interest with the estate and its beneficiaries, as he was a defendant in potential family law and child support claims by the estate, and had failed to pay child support since the deceased's death.

The court denied the moving party's application and ordered that he be passed over as estate trustee.

The applicant and respondents were involved in a long-standing dispute over a Joint Venture Agreement for a gas bar on a First Nation.

The respondents brought pre-hearing motions to bifurcate the hearing to address the Indian Act issue first, for interim possession of the business, and for the return of $15,000 paid into court as security for costs.

The applicant brought a motion to call oral evidence at the hearing.

The court denied the bifurcation and interim possession motions, granted the motion to call oral evidence, and ordered the return of the $15,000 to the respondent.

The applicant, a 19-year-old Black man, sought a bail review after being detained on firearms and drug charges arising from a traffic stop.

The reviewing judge found the justice of the peace erred in law by failing to consider s. 493.2 of the Criminal Code regarding vulnerable populations when assessing the applicant's initial provision of a false name, and by relying on inappropriate racial stereotypes.

The judge also found the justice of the peace made unsupported inferences about the applicant's involvement in a criminal enterprise.

Finding a material change in circumstances due to a new surety plan and the death of the applicant's grandmother from COVID-19, the judge conducted an independent review and granted release on strict house arrest conditions.

The defendants were successful on a motion to regularize the self-represented plaintiff's statement of claim.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, noting that the plaintiff's combative approach and refusal to accept constructive direction necessitated the motion and the participation of all defense counsel.

The self-represented plaintiff commenced an action against the law firm representing a defendant in another proceeding, alleging errors in a motion record and improper requests for a case management judge.

The court issued a notice under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine if the claim should be dismissed.

Finding that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was initiated to express frustration with opposing counsel, the court dismissed the action as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, awarding costs to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion to regularize the self-represented plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The plaintiff had issued a single claim but served different, cut-and-pasted versions on each individual defendant.

The court ordered the plaintiff to prepare, issue, and serve a single 'Fresh as Amended Statement of Claim' containing all allegations against all defendants in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Additionally, exercising its inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process, the court prohibited the plaintiff from initiating any further proceedings or motions without leave of the case management judge.