Larry Walter Douglas

The applicants, Zoranna Drumonde and Nicholas Spellay, sought the removal of their sister, Rosalie Spellay, as estate trustee and the sale of the family cottage left by their late mother, Rose Anne Spellay.

The court interpreted the will, which intended the cottage to remain in the family, and found that the property should be treated as held in joint tenancy among the surviving siblings.

The court held that the applicants could force a sale under the Partition Act, and that the opt-out clause for a $5,000 buyout was a one-time option that had expired.

The court ordered the property to be listed for sale, with proceeds to be divided unequally in recognition of Rosalie Spellay’s contributions, and left costs to each party.

Heather Noganosh pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing two deaths and one bodily harm.

The court considered aggravating factors (deliberate passing, exceeding speed, obstructed view, novice driver, pregnant) and significant mitigating factors (first offender, remorse, strong community support, primary caregiver for disabled parents, Aboriginal heritage requiring Gladue considerations).

The Crown sought 42 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a minimal or suspended sentence.

The court rejected a fixed sentencing range for dangerous driving causing death, emphasizing individual factors and moral blameworthiness.

A 12-month concurrent sentence for the deaths and 3 months concurrent for bodily harm was imposed, along with two years probation and a five-year driving prohibition, considering her unique circumstances as an Aboriginal offender and the detrimental effect of a longer incarceration.

The Crown appealed acquittals on charges including theft over $5,000, possession of stolen property, fraud, false pretences, and making a false statement to obtain a loan arising from a business loan secured by equipment.

The trial judge concluded there was reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s intent to breach the criminal law, largely because the accused intended to repay the loan.

The appellate court held the trial judge’s reasons were insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review and failed to explain how credibility findings or the evidence supported the acquittals.

The court also found an error of law in treating an intention to repay as negating fraudulent intent, contrary to established jurisprudence.

The Crown appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The applicants sought to set aside a vesting order that removed a trust company and a deceased partner from title to an island property and vested title solely in the respondent.

They argued the order was made without notice and that the Statute of Frauds barred reliance on an alleged oral agreement transferring the property.

The court held that once a vesting order is registered on title, its attributes as a court order are spent and it cannot be set aside under Rule 38.11.

Treating the application as one for rectification of title under the Land Titles Act, the court found sufficient evidence of part performance supporting an oral agreement transferring the deceased partner’s interest.

The evidence did not establish that the applicants were entitled to rectification of the register.