3 total
Appeal allowed in part to remove unauthorized fines and unsupported restrictions on a non-biting dog.
The appellant appealed a conviction under section 4(1) of the Dog Owners Liability Act (DOLA) for failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her dog from biting a person.
The trial Justice of the Peace found the appellant guilty and imposed restrictions on two dogs and fines totalling $800.
The appeal court allowed the appeal in part, finding that while the conviction was supported by evidence, the trial judge erred in failing to identify which specific dog was responsible for the bite and in imposing restrictions on both dogs without evidentiary support.
The court set aside the fines and restrictions on the younger dog (Dolly), finding that only the older dog (Stella) was involved in the incident.
An unwitnessed, cut-and-paste document was validated as a codicil under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.
The applicant sought to validate an informal, unwitnessed document dated December 31, 2021, as a will or codicil of the deceased, Garnet Earl Rombough, under section 21.1 of the Succession Law Reform Act.
The deceased had a formal will from 2012.
Respondents challenged the 2021 document, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, and forgery.
The court found the 2021 document authentic, made with testamentary capacity, and free from undue influence or fraud.
It determined that the 2021 document, read in conjunction with the 2012 will, represented the deceased's final testamentary intentions, acting as a codicil to the earlier will.
The application was granted, and both documents were admitted to probate.
Regulatory challenge failed because no evidence rebutted presumed administrative regularity.
In an appeal concerning transportation regulation, the appellant sought to invalidate amending rail interswitching regulations on the basis that the regulator followed improper governmental direction in the rule-making process.
The appellant accepted that the regulator had statutory authority and that a presumption of proper administrative action applied.
The Court held that no evidentiary foundation was provided to rebut that presumption.
The appeal was dismissed with costs to the federal respondent.
