Mayssia Elajami

The applicant, Maria Elena Lao Chan, sought to set aside a 1995 divorce judgment between herself and her now-deceased husband, Wing Sang Chan, on the grounds of mistake and/or fraud.

The court reviewed the lengthy factual and procedural history, including conflicting narratives about the parties' marital status, the authenticity of affidavits, and the involvement of handwriting experts.

Ultimately, the court found insufficient evidence to support Maria's claims of fraud, inadequate child support arrangements, or lack of jurisdiction.

The motion was dismissed.

The applicants, elderly parents, sought an order vesting title to a residential property registered in their daughter's name, claiming a purchase money resulting trust, bare trust, or constructive trust.

The property was purchased by their son, who later gifted it to the daughter.

The parents claimed they had paid for a previous property whose sale proceeds funded the current one, and that they contributed to upkeep.

The court dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence that the parents contributed to the purchase price, no written agreement or certainty of intention for a bare trust, and no unjust enrichment to support a constructive trust, as the parents had lived rent-free in the properties for years.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired by drug following observations of erratic driving, two motor vehicle accidents, and physical indicia of impairment.

The trial judge found Charter breaches regarding the suspension of the right to counsel at the roadside and the failure to obtain an informed and unequivocal waiver of counsel at the police station.

Evidence obtained following these breaches was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, the trial judge found the Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on admissible evidence including civilian witness testimony of erratic driving, police observations of physical impairment indicators, and expert evidence regarding the effects of drugs on driving ability.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to comply with a breath demand.

The court found the evidence overwhelming that the accused was impaired and wilfully refused to provide a suitable breath sample.

The Crown conceded a breach of the accused's s. 9 Charter rights due to an unjustified 8-hour detention at the police station after the refusal.

The court rejected the accused's request for a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2), finding no causal or temporal connection between the breach and the evidence obtained.

Instead, the court granted a sentence reduction under s. 24(1), reducing the fines to $200 per charge and imposing the minimum 12-month driving prohibition.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and "over 80" under the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the accused was intoxicated and in the driver's seat of a vehicle in a parking lot.

The defence challenged the arrest on Charter grounds and argued the presumption of care or control was rebutted by the accused's testimony that he had decided not to drive home.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, rejected the Charter challenges, and convicted the accused on both counts, finding that the presumption was not rebutted and that actual care or control was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The defendant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude breath testing results, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded a section 10(b) violation.

The court dismissed the application regarding sections 9 and 10(a), finding no violations.

On the conceded section 10(b) breach, the court applied the three-stage test from R. v. Grant and determined that the breath sample results should not be excluded, considering the good faith efforts of police, the minimal intrusiveness of breath sampling, and the public interest in curbing impaired driving.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and care or control of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol concentration (over 80).

The Crown alleged the defendant was found lying in the roadway at 4:16 a.m., subsequently entered his vehicle which was running, and exhibited signs of impairment.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the admissibility of breath test results on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on reasonable and probable grounds, any Charter violations were technical and cured, and the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.