Leach

The accused, charged with second-degree murder in a cold case, brought a pretrial application to exclude statements made to undercover officers during a 'cell insert' operation.

The accused argued the operation breached his right to silence under section 7 of the Charter.

The court found that the undercover officers actively elicited information from the accused, exploiting his vulnerabilities, including mental illness and drug addiction, and the circumstances of his confinement.

The court concluded that the accused's right to silence was breached and excluded the statements under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with possession of methamphetamine after police, acting on a tip from a confidential informant, arrested him while he was walking his dog.

A search incident to arrest at the police station revealed 7.6 grams of methamphetamine hidden inside the dog's harness.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention and unreasonable search and seizure under sections 8 and 9.

The court found the police had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest based on the compelling, credible, and corroborated informant tip.

The subsequent search of the dog's harness was deemed a valid search incident to lawful arrest.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the accused was found guilty of possession.

The plaintiff was severely injured in a single-vehicle rollover accident on a rural gravel road.

She sued the municipality, alleging the accident was caused by the road's poor state of repair, specifically the presence of potholes and loose gravel.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding that the road was in a reasonable state of repair for a rural gravel road and that the potholes did not constitute a state of disrepair.

Furthermore, the court concluded that the accident was caused entirely by the plaintiff's own negligence, including driving at an excessive speed and overcorrecting after encountering an oncoming vehicle.

The court also found that the plaintiff was not wearing her seatbelt, which would have resulted in a 25% reduction in damages for contributory negligence had the municipality been found liable.

The plaintiff was injured in a single-vehicle accident involving his own vehicle and sought to amend his statement of claim to assert a claim against his own automobile insurer under the OPCF 44R family protection endorsement.

He alleged that an unlicenced acquaintance was driving the vehicle at the time.

The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis that the claim was not tenable in law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that while the motion judge erred in her interpretation of the endorsement, the proposed claim was ultimately untenable in any of the possible factual scenarios.

The applicant, a minority shareholder, brought a motion to remove the respondents' lawyer of record in an oppression application.

The lawyer had actively participated in key meetings leading to the applicant's termination and had jointly represented both the corporation and the majority shareholders.

The court granted the motion, finding that the lawyer was a material witness to critical events and that his joint representation of the corporation and the majority shareholders constituted an impermissible conflict of interest.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside an order striking out its statement of defence and dismissing its counterclaim, which was obtained without notice after the defendant failed to comply with an earlier order requiring it to satisfy undertakings.

The court reviewed conflicting case law on whether an order obtained without notice pursuant to an earlier order made on notice falls under Rule 37.14(1)(a).

The court concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the motion but declined to set aside the order, finding the defendant's complete and ongoing failure to comply with its undertakings and court orders justified the dismissal.

The motion and a supplemental motion to set aside the noting in default were dismissed.