Mark L. J. Edwards

The parties reached a resolution prior to the hearing of the appeal.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as abandoned.

The appellant appealed a jury verdict that dismissed his motor vehicle accident claim, finding no negligence on the part of the respondent driver and assessing damages at zero.

The appellant argued the verdict was perverse and that the trial judge made several procedural and instructional errors.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury was entitled to reject the appellant's evidence based on credibility issues and that the trial judge made no errors in the conduct of the trial or her instructions to the jury.

The appellant pedestrian was struck by a vehicle and sued for damages.

At trial, the judge ruled on the section 266(3) Insurance Act threshold motion while the jury was deliberating, finding the appellant not credible and dismissing the action.

The jury subsequently returned a substantial damages award.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge was required to wait for the jury's verdict and follow its implicit credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the legislature left the threshold determination to the judge, who is not bound by the jury's verdict, and the timing of the ruling is within the judge's discretion.

The appellants, who used explosives as stonemasons and rifles as seasonal hunting guides, appealed their sentences which included a mandatory prohibition against possessing firearms or ammunition under s. 100 of the Criminal Code.

They argued the prohibition constituted cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 100 does not offend s. 12 of the Charter and declining to grant a constitutional exemption.