K. Evans

The applicant sought to be appointed as the estate trustee for the deceased intestate under section 29 of the Estates Act, bypassing the standard Rule 74 process.

The applicant argued urgency, alleging that unknown occupants were residing in the deceased's property and possibly engaging in illegal activities.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the evidence of urgency was based on hearsay and double hearsay, and did not establish the 'special circumstances' required under subsection 29(3) of the Estates Act.

The applicant was directed to apply for appointment through the standard Rule 74 process.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent contractor $18,161 for home renovations.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in admitting an annotated work report not served 30 days before trial and in finding the contract scope excluded a former restaurant attached to the home.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Small Claims Court rules on document admission are enabling, not prohibitive, and that the trial judge's interpretation of the contract scope was supported by ample evidence.

The defendant was charged with refusing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples suitable for analysis under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the defendant failed to provide suitable samples during ten attempts at an OPP detachment on April 1, 2012.

The defence challenged both the actus reus and mens rea of the offence, arguing that the breath technician's rejection of the samples was unreasonable and that instrument malfunction could not be ruled out.

The court found that the breath technician properly exercised his discretion in rejecting the samples as unsuitable, that the defendant manifested no signs of distress, and that the Crown adequately proved the instrument was functioning properly.

The defendant was found guilty.