Mathieu R. Ansell

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay proceedings on charges of impaired driving and driving over the legal limit.

The trial judge had found that the accused's language rights under sections 7, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter were infringed because the police did not communicate with him in French, and that he was arbitrarily detained under section 9.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by raising the language rights issue on his own during closing arguments, taking improper judicial notice of facts, and misapplying the law on language rights.

The court also found no arbitrary detention and set aside the stay of proceedings, remitting the matter back to the trial court to hear a pending section 11(b) application.

The plaintiff brought a wrongful dismissal action against his former employer and its owners, alleging age discrimination.

The personal defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the age discrimination claims against them.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for summary judgment on the entire claim.

The court granted the personal defendants' motion, finding no employment relationship and no factual foundation for the age discrimination claim.

On the plaintiff's motion, the court found no cause for termination and that the plaintiff had mitigated his damages, leaving only the quantum of notice to be determined at a later date.

The plaintiffs, step-children of the deceased, challenged the validity of a 2007 will that left the estate entirely to the deceased's biological children.

They argued the 2007 will was invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and the existence of a prior 1983 mutual will.

Alternatively, they claimed compensation for services rendered on a quantum meruit basis.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence that the 1983 wills were mutual wills incapable of revocation.

The court also found the deceased had testamentary capacity based on medical evidence and that the presumption of undue influence was rebutted.

The quantum meruit claim failed because the services were provided out of love and affection without expectation of compensation.