K. Jones

The Crown brought a similar fact application to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct, specifically a sexual assault conviction against accused E.L. involving the same complainant.

The court assessed the relevance, materiality, and probative value of the evidence against its potential prejudicial effect, particularly for co-accused V.S. The court found the evidence highly probative, especially given the child complainant and the pattern of behaviour alleged, and that its probative value outweighed the prejudice.

The application was granted, allowing the conviction and decision to be admitted, with a restriction on questioning the complainant about the substance of the prior conviction.

At a commercial list case conference in complex multi-party litigation involving disputed financial transactions, the court addressed case management issues relating to discovery planning.

The parties agreed to a joint litigation and discovery plan aimed at identifying disputed transactions and clarifying the parties’ positions.

The court ordered that all undertakings arising from examinations for discovery be answered within 60 days and expressed reluctance to schedule refusals motions, noting they often add little value and that adverse inferences may be drawn at trial where proper questions are refused.

The matter was scheduled for a further case conference to assess the potential for mediation and estimate trial length.

The moving defendants sought an order striking portions of the plaintiffs’ responses to a demand for particulars and requiring further particulars of negligence allegations pleaded in the statement of claim.

The court held that the original pleading of negligence was bald and inadequate, but the plaintiffs’ subsequent responses to the demand for particulars provided sufficient detail to allow the defendants to plead and proceed to discovery.

While the responses used open-ended language that could potentially permit additional allegations, the court found that this risk could be managed through discovery and case management directions.

The court declined to strike the pleading or require further particulars, emphasizing the need to move the long-standing action forward.