M. Henry

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement arising from a motor vehicle accident.

The plaintiffs' new counsel, retained shortly before the hearing, required time to finalize motion materials.

Despite the defendants' objection to the late request, the court granted a brief adjournment to prevent prejudice, ordering the plaintiffs to pay $500 in costs to the defendants.

At a case conference, the court scheduled a timetable for three upcoming motions: the defendants' motion to enforce a settlement, the plaintiff's counsel's motion to be removed as solicitor of record, and a motion for an order to continue given the plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt.

The court directed that the order to continue be heard first, followed by the removal motion, and finally the motion to enforce the settlement.

The defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement after the plaintiff's counsel communicated acceptance of an offer to settle, which the plaintiff subsequently rescinded.

The court established a timetable for the motion to enforce the settlement and noted that the plaintiff's counsel intended to bring a motion to be removed as solicitor of record.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample after being found asleep in a parked vehicle and registering a fail on an approved screening device (ASD) test.

The Crown's case relied on evidence from two police officers.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable suspicion to demand the ASD test due to significant credibility issues and contradictions in his testimony.

The court further found that the defendant's Charter rights to counsel were infringed, as there was no reliable evidence that he received legal advice despite claims by police.

The court excluded the evidence of refusal under the Grant analysis, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on January 13, 2018.

A York Regional Police sergeant observed the defendant's vehicle stopped in a live lane of traffic, followed it, and conducted a sobriety check.

The defendant provided a breath sample on an approved screening device (ASD) which registered a "Fail," leading to arrest and a breath demand at the police station.

The defendant's blood alcohol readings were 140 and 130 mgs of alcohol in 100 mls of blood.

The court rejected multiple Charter challenges, including arguments regarding the presumption of identity, the calibration of the breath testing device, reasonable grounds for the ASD demand, and alleged breaches of rights to counsel and protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

Paul Bliss, a former CTV reporter, sued CTV Television Network Ltd. and Bell Media Inc. for defamation following news broadcasts detailing sexual harassment allegations against him.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the dispute arose under a collective agreement.

The court found that while the initial broadcast might relate to employment obligations, subsequent broadcasts with salacious details went beyond workplace issues and into general news reporting.

Therefore, the defamation claim did not arise under the collective agreement, and the court retained jurisdiction.

The defendants' motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm after an altercation in a parking lot resulted in the complainant suffering a broken jaw.

The Crown alleged the defendant struck the complainant with a glass bong.

The defendant claimed he acted in self-defence after being attacked by the complainant and his friend while sitting in his vehicle.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant struck the complainant with the bong, and that even if the defendant caused the injury through punching, his response was reasonable self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.