Kevin John Anthony Sawyer

The respondent was injured in an automobile accident in Quebec and elected to receive benefits under the Quebec legislative framework pursuant to s. 59(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

A dispute arose over whether the procedural rules for adjusting the claim, specifically the requirement to attend an Examination Under Oath, were governed by the Schedule or the Quebec Automobile Insurance Act.

The Tribunal held that while the substantive law of Quebec applies to the benefits, the procedural law of the Schedule governs the adjustment of the claim.

The Tribunal also granted the respondent's motion to anonymize the decision to protect her medical privacy.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to stop at a red light under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was heard nearly 18 years after the trial.

The appeal court found that the Justice of the Peace provided inadequate reasons for conviction, failing to address the appellant's testimony or explain why the officer's evidence was accepted.

Furthermore, the Justice of the Peace failed to fulfill the duty to assist a self-represented litigant, particularly regarding the introduction of photographic evidence.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal was entered.

This decision addresses an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay under sections 11(b) and 24 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant, Giuseppe Agrippa, argued that the total delay of 22 months and 16 days exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed whether appellate delay applies under s.11(b), the calculation of net delay including neutral and defence delay, and the attribution of adjournments.

The court found that the period during which the applicant was convicted and awaiting reopening could not be counted as delay, and that some adjournments were attributable to defence delay.

After deductions, the net delay was below the Jordan ceiling, and the application for a stay was dismissed.

The defendants moved for summary judgment against the plaintiff, seeking the return of a service dog, Briggs, arguing there was no genuine issue for trial as the plaintiff was not the dog's owner.

The plaintiff opposed, citing incomplete discovery and insufficient evidence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a fair and just adjudication required a trial due to credibility issues and a deficient record, especially given the constraints of simplified procedure rules which limit pre-trial proceedings like cross-examinations.