Laura Robinson

The appellant was convicted at trial of sexual assault and sexual interference.

He appealed on the basis that the trial judge failed to give adequate reasons with respect to the assessment of witness credibility.

The majority of the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's reasons were sufficiently articulate in explaining how credibility issues were resolved, that the trial judge applied the proper framework to assess credibility, and that the trial judge did not misapprehend evidence.

The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal, adopting the reasons of the dissenting Court of Appeal judge.

The plaintiff in a medical malpractice action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused on discovery by the defendant doctors.

The action involved allegations of negligence in connection with hip replacement and revision surgeries.

The court held that questions seeking retrospective opinions or speculation about the cause of metal fatigue and the conduct of co-defendants were improper.

However, questions regarding a defendant doctor's understanding and belief at the time of treating the plaintiff were proper and ordered to be answered.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce answers to questions refused on cross-examination and a motion to adduce fresh evidence, following an adjournment of an underlying motion to vary a Mareva order.

The non-parties sought costs for the adjournment and the motions.

The court found the non-parties were mostly successful overall and awarded them costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing the amounts at $9,610 for one non-party and $4,310 for the other after assessing the reasonableness of the claimed fees.

The Court held that defence evidence about an unknown third party suspect is governed by general admissibility principles: relevance plus a balancing of probative value against prejudicial effect.

The trial judge erred by requiring proof on a balance of probabilities that the similar incident occurred and by treating the issue as known third party suspect evidence.

The appeal was dismissed and the order for a new trial was upheld.