Liam Thompson

The accused is charged with first degree murder and attempted murder following a firebombing that killed three people.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of the accused's after-the-fact conduct, specifically an incident where the accused allegedly assaulted a witness in jail after calling him a 'rat'.

The court ruled the evidence admissible as circumstantial evidence relevant to identity and consciousness of guilt, but limited the Crown from introducing detailed evidence of the witness's injuries to avoid undue prejudice.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct in a trial concerning a fatal fire.

The proposed evidence included the accused's history of drug dealing, controlling behaviour, and threats towards the deceased and others.

The court applied the test for prior discreditable conduct, weighing the probative value of each piece of evidence against its prejudicial effect.

The court ruled that some evidence, including certain text messages and interactions demonstrating animus and motive, was admissible, while other evidence, such as the accused's prior desire to use Molotov cocktails, was excluded as overly prejudicial.

The applicant brought motions for financial disclosure, interim child and spousal support, and interim disbursements for legal and expert fees in a high-net-worth family law dispute.

The respondent opposed the motions and filed late affidavit evidence.

The court struck the late and inadmissible evidence, ordered the respondent to produce the requested corporate and financial disclosure, and ordered interim child support of $7,207 per month and spousal support of $9,023 per month based on a three-year average income of $458,825.

The court also ordered the respondent to pay $150,000 for the applicant's expert fees and $75,000 for her legal fees under Rule 24(18) of the Family Law Rules.

The third parties brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to disclose their real estate lawyer's files relating to the purchase of their property.

The plaintiffs opposed, claiming solicitor-client privilege.

The court found that the plaintiffs' former counsel had previously undertaken to produce the files and had thereby waived any claim to privilege.

The motion was granted and the plaintiffs were ordered to produce the files.