Mitchell Rowe

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff in a defamation action, relying on Rule 56.01(a) due to the plaintiff's ordinary residence outside Ontario.

The court found the plaintiff to be impecunious, demonstrating his financial inability to post security, and that his claim was not plainly devoid of merit.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

On a voir dire in a criminal prosecution, the court considered whether statements made by the accused to an Eligibility Review Officer during an investigation under the Disability Support Program Act were voluntary and whether their use would breach the accused’s section 7 Charter right against self‑incrimination.

The accused argued the officer was a person in authority and that the interview was effectively compelled.

The court held the officer was conducting an administrative eligibility investigation and was not acting on behalf of police or prosecuting authorities.

Applying the principles from R. v. Hodgson and R. v. Jarvis, the court found the officer was not a person in authority and the statements were voluntary.

The court further held that the investigation had not crossed the line into a penal inquiry and therefore no section 7 Charter breach occurred.