M.G. Emery

The accused, charged with multiple firearms and stolen vehicle offences, sought a bail review under s. 520 and s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being detained on the tertiary ground.

The accused proposed a new release plan involving his father, a correctional officer residing in New Brunswick, as a surety.

The court found that the new release plan constituted a material change in circumstances and that the Crown had not shown that continued detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was granted interim judicial release on strict conditions, including house arrest and significant financial pledges from sureties.

Following a successful appeal regarding a late jury notice, the Ministry of Finance sought costs of $7,500 on a partial indemnity basis for both the appeal and the motion below.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded because the issue was novel, or alternatively, that the quantum should be reduced.

The court rejected the novelty argument, noting the issue arose from the respondent's failure to serve a jury notice in time.

Applying the principle that costs must be fair and reasonable, the court awarded $6,264.40 to the Ministry, payable by a specified date.

The applicant mother and respondent father both sought sole custody of their 13-year-old son.

The child had been living primarily with the father and paternal grandparents since separation.

A Section 30 assessment recommended shared parenting or sole custody to the mother if the father did not move away from his parents, but the court found the assessors favoured the mother.

Following a judicial interview where the child expressed a strong preference to live with his father and fear of his mother, and considering the father's ability to provide a stable environment, the court awarded sole custody to the father.

The mother was granted access every other weekend, with overnight visits conditional on OCL approval of sleeping arrangements, and both parties were ordered to attend counselling.

Following a motion to change, the self-represented applicant father sought costs of $1,200 for his time spent attending court.

The respondent mother did not file responding submissions.

The court applied the principles from Fong v. Chan, noting that self-represented litigants must demonstrate an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity to recover costs for their time.

As the applicant provided no evidence of lost income or opportunity cost, the court declined to award costs to either party.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce the terms of a final order and sought costs.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and also sought costs, arguing she was substantially successful because the father only succeeded on two of the eleven terms he sought to enforce.

The court found the father was the successful party, noting that the breach of any term in a court order is one breach too many.

However, the court apportioned costs for divided success, discounting the father's partial indemnity costs claim by 60 percent and awarding him $6,400.