Robert B. Howe

Following the discontinuance of a civil action shortly before trial, the defendants sought directions regarding the management and trial of their remaining counterclaims.

The court noted that trial preparation had been substantially completed when the plaintiff discontinued the action.

In the interests of justice and efficiency, the court established a timetable for the amendment of pleadings, completion of documentary discovery and examinations for discovery, a pre-trial conference, and a scheduled trial date.

The court also adjusted the timelines under the Rules of Civil Procedure to accommodate the ordered schedule.

The appellant appealed a summary conviction appeal judge's decision, arguing that once a breathalyzer technician submits a breath sample and the instrument produces a result, the sample is automatically deemed 'necessary to enable proper analysis' under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code, removing any discretion to reject it.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the statute contains no such limitation and agreeing that the trial judge erred in concluding the technician lacked discretion to reject an unsuitable sample.

The appellant sought to appeal a decision on an interlocutory application in a criminal proceeding.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that there is no provision in the Criminal Code that permits appellate review of such a decision.

The appellant, now 43 years old, was charged with historical sexual offences against his sister, allegedly committed when he was between 14 and 18 years old.

The Crown successfully applied to transfer the charges from youth court to ordinary court under the Young Offenders Act.

The appellant applied for a review of the transfer order.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding that the youth court system is ill-suited to meet the rehabilitative needs of a mature offender and that placing a 43-year-old in a youth facility would pose a risk to other young offenders.

The Crown appealed acquittals on theft under $5,000 and possession arising from cash found during a post-fire cleanup of hotel property.

The appellate court held the Crown had advanced and led evidence on the theory that the cash belonged to a specific individual, and the trial judge was entitled to find that ownership had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although an alternative occupier-based property interest theory was legally available, it had not been developed in the evidence, and the Crown was not entitled to a second opportunity to prove that theory on appeal.

The court also declined to order a new trial on the possession charge, finding that the administration of justice would not be served by permitting the Crown to advance a new theory after the theft acquittal stood.