D. Wilson

The defendants sought costs following their successful motion to compel the plaintiff to attend orthopaedic and psychiatric assessments.

The plaintiff opposed the costs, arguing the defendants' counsel delayed serving motion materials.

The court found no reason to depart from the general rule that the successful party is entitled to costs, noting the plaintiff opposed any examination, even virtual ones.

The court fixed costs payable to the defendants at $7,000 on a partial indemnity scale.

The plaintiff was partially successful on a motion to compel a further and better affidavit of documents and sought partial indemnity costs of $4,575.87.

The defendants argued for 50% of the claimed costs due to divided success.

The court rejected a strict mathematical reduction for divided success but noted the plaintiff's evidentiary failings on the unsuccessful relief.

Costs were fixed at $3,748.82 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Defence counsel brought an application to be removed as solicitor of record for the accused after accepting a full-time contract position.

The accused and the Crown opposed the application.

The trial was scheduled to commence in less than two months, and the accused was unable to retain alternate counsel for the scheduled dates.

The court applied the Cunningham factors and found that adjourning the trial would likely result in a delay of over a year, potentially triggering a successful Jordan application and negatively impacting the accused's rehabilitation.

The application was dismissed as withdrawal would cause serious harm to the administration of justice.

The plaintiff, suing his former lawyers for professional negligence and breach of contract, brought a motion under Rule 30.06 for a further and better affidavit of documents.

The plaintiff sought production of correspondence, legal billing records, internal law firm documents, and settlement communications with insurers.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering the defendants to produce documents relating to legal billing and accounting, as well as communications with insurers regarding the settlement of the tort and accident benefits claims, finding these relevant to the pleadings.

The request for internal documents and other correspondence was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The moving defendants sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the action against them regarding a three-vehicle intersection collision.

The collision occurred when a northbound driver made a left turn in front of a southbound driver (the moving defendant), causing a collision that subsequently struck the plaintiff's stopped vehicle.

The court found partial summary judgment appropriate and used its fact-finding powers to determine liability.

The court apportioned 90% liability to the left-turning driver and 10% liability to the moving defendant for failing to slow down when approaching the intersection with an obstructed view.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, brought a pretrial application to exclude his formal statement to police, alleging it was involuntary and obtained in violation of his rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found the statement was voluntary, as the police interrogation techniques did not overbear the applicant's will.

However, the court found that the police breached ss. 10(a) and 10(b) by failing to inform the applicant of the deceased's name or specific details of the murder charge, which prevented him from meaningfully instructing counsel.

Applying the Grant framework under s. 24(2), the court concluded that admitting the statement would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences arising from the possession of a loaded handgun found under a pillow in his bedroom.

At the time, he was bound by a weapons prohibition order and had a previous criminal record including firearms offences.

The court accepted a joint submission for a sentence of five years' imprisonment.

After applying credit for pre-trial custody, the accused was sentenced to 28 months going forward, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and an $800 victim surcharge.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for breach of probation.

He argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay evidence regarding the self-identification of the person he was associating with, and by relying on in-court identification.

The appeal court found that the admissible evidence, considered as a whole, was sufficient to support the conviction.

The court also upheld the consecutive sentence, noting that the breach of a court order shortly after release from custody was egregious and warranted a consecutive sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.