Monick L. Grenier

The appellants appealed a motion judge's order that varied a 2000 judgment concerning a right-of-way and the removal of gates.

The motion judge, applying Rule 59.06, corrected a "slip" in the original judgment and further amended it to exempt an additional gate ("gate located at the lake") from removal, based on the original judge's manifest intention.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge's interpretation of the original order and application of Rule 59.06 to be reasonable and within the scope of amendment powers.

The parties brought motions under Rule 59.06(1) to amend a 2000 judgment regarding the removal of gates across a right-of-way.

The original judgment contained an error referring to a gate at the 'road' instead of the 'barn'.

The moving party sought a further amendment to clarify that a 'gate at the lake' was also excepted from removal, to reflect the original trial judge's manifest intention.

The court granted the motion, finding that the amendment was necessary to accurately reflect the original decision and prevent further disputes.

M.L. sought a bail review after being detained by a Justice of the Peace on charges including CDSA, weapons, and ammunition offences.

The review considered new evidence, such as M.L.'s personal history of trauma and addiction, her recent commitment to recovery programs (Suboxone, AA, NA, Bible study, yoga), and the support offered by the John Howard Society for housing and supervision.

The court found that this new evidence, which was not available at the initial bail hearing, materially ameliorated the flight risk and the risk of re-offending, thereby rebutting the reverse onus for release.

Bail was granted with conditions focused on supervision, rehabilitation, and non-communication with a co-accused.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's claims of misrepresentation and breach of the Consumer Protection Act arising from a vehicle purchase and credit rebuilding program.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for leave to amend her statement of claim to include admissions made by the corporate defendant in a related OMVIC proceeding.

The court granted the plaintiff leave to amend the pleading, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that genuine issues for trial existed regarding the alleged misrepresentations and statutory violations that could not be resolved on the documentary record alone.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking a court‑ordered state-funded counsel after being denied Legal Aid.

The Crown conceded the accused had been refused Legal Aid and lacked the financial means to retain counsel, leaving only the issue of whether her right to a fair trial would be materially compromised without representation.

The accused faced charges of mischief and criminal harassment and argued the harassment charge was legally complex.

The court held the anticipated four‑hour trial was not lengthy or complex and that the accused could effectively represent herself with guidance from the court.

The application for court‑appointed counsel was dismissed.