Lindsay Young

The accused was charged with assault arising from an incident in which he pushed the property owner (his landlord) out of his rental unit.

The landlord attended the property with plumbers to investigate a water leak.

The accused claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code.

While the court found that the accused had peaceable possession of the property and acted with a defensive purpose, it concluded that the force used was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The threat posed by the landlord was negligible, and the accused should have attempted verbal communication before resorting to physical force.

The court found the accused guilty of assault.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with excess alcohol, and mischief following a late-night incident on October 16, 2024, involving an argument with his spouse, consumption of alcohol, and a minor collision between his ATV and his spouse's vehicle on their rural property driveway.

The Crown proved the defendant's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit through breath samples taken at 3:32 a.m. and 3:58 a.m., both showing truncated readings of 170 milligrams per 100 milliliters of blood.

The defendant was found guilty of driving with excess alcohol but acquitted of impaired driving and mischief due to insufficient evidence of impairment at the time of driving and lack of intent regarding the property damage.

The plaintiff condominium corporation sued the adjacent property owner for damages to its easement rights due to the defendant's failure to maintain a shared retaining wall, pleading negligence and nuisance.

The defendant, third parties (Development Engineering (London) Limited, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada), and fourth party (Atkinson, Davies Inc.) brought motions for summary judgment to dismiss the claims.

The court found no common law, statutory, contractual, or equitable duty for the servient tenement (defendant) to repair the wall, especially since the defendant was not responsible for its initial collapse.

Consequently, the plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

The court also found that the defendant, third parties, and fourth party were not concurrent tortfeasors, thus precluding claims for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.