M. Jones

The plaintiffs brought an action against a child welfare agency following the suicide of a teenager in its care.

After the expiry of the two-year limitation period under the Trustee Act, the plaintiffs sought to add a doctor and a hospital as defendants, arguing that the late discovery of a clinical note constituted special circumstances or fraudulent concealment.

The moving parties brought summary judgment motions to dismiss the action against them as statute-barred.

The court granted the motions, finding no evidence of fraudulent concealment and concluding that the plaintiffs' delay in pursuing the action and seeking to add the parties did not justify extending the limitation period.

The applicant, charged with various drug and property offences, brought an application to exclude evidence obtained during a search of his rural property.

The police initially obtained a warrant to search for a handgun but subsequently found large amounts of cash and drugs, leading to a second warrant.

The court found the first warrant was overbroad and excised portions allowing searches of outbuildings.

The court also found the police breached the applicant's section 8 Charter rights by unreasonably seizing cash from his person during the initial entry.

Finally, the court ruled the second warrant was invalid due to improper 'adjudicator shopping' by the affiant, rendering the subsequent seizures warrantless.

The section 24(2) analysis was deferred to a later hearing.

The applicant, facing drug trafficking charges, brought a Garofoli application alleging a violation of section 8 of the Charter and seeking to quash a wiretap authorization.

The applicant argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable and probable grounds, and that police were grossly negligent or deliberately misleading in their presentation of a police agent's reliability and information.

The court reviewed the ITO, excising inappropriate material and amplifying it with evidence from the hearing.

The court found that the police agent was not a confidential informant at the time the ITO was considered, and his information, corroborated by other sources, provided sufficient grounds for the authorization.

The court concluded there was no police misconduct or gross negligence, and the ITO was facially valid.

The application was dismissed.

The accused applied for leave to cross‑examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain supporting a Part VI authorization, intending to challenge the authorization through a Garofoli application.

The accused argued that the police agent’s reliability problems and alleged investigative failures undermined the grounds relied upon in the ITO.

The court reviewed the governing principles from Garofoli and subsequent authorities requiring a reasonable likelihood that cross‑examination would elicit evidence capable of undermining a precondition to the authorization.

After reviewing numerous proposed areas of questioning relating to the agent’s credibility, background, and post‑authorization conduct, the court concluded they concerned minor matters, speculative issues, or information arising after the authorization was granted.

The court held that cross‑examination would not assist in discrediting the grounds for the authorization.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' medical malpractice action on the basis that it was statute-barred.

The plaintiffs had previously commenced two identical actions, one of which was dismissed as abandoned.

The court found that the plaintiffs' claim that they discovered the cause of action in September 2011 was inconsistent with their pleadings in the prior action and unsupported by evidence.

Applying the statutory presumption of discoverability, the court concluded the action was commenced beyond the two-year limitation period.

The motion was granted and the action dismissed.