Ms. B. Thompson

The defendants, P. James Wallbridge and Wallbridge, Wallbridge, sought to add the Attorney General of Canada (AGC) as a party defendant to allow for apportionment of liability in a negligence claim related to the Independent Assessment Process (IAP) under the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement (IRSSA).

The plaintiffs alleged the defendants were negligent in failing to ensure a complete documentary record was before the IAP adjudicator.

The defendants argued adding the AGC was necessary for procedural fairness and effective apportionment, especially given the Crown's immunity from non-party discovery.

The court granted the motion to add the AGC but imposed significant limitations on its participation, including no requirement to file pleadings or attend trial (unless summoned), and restricted discovery rights.

The defendant was charged with care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown conceded that the defendant was impaired and over the legal limit.

The sole issue was whether the defendant was in care or control of the vehicle.

The defendant testified he had no intention to drive and was waiting for his partner to pick him up.

The court found that the defendant occupied the driver's seat with a contemporaneous intention to drive, or alternatively, that there was a realistic risk he would change his mind and drive home given the circumstances.

The defendant was convicted.

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting her 10-year-old son.

The assault occurred while the accused was under the influence of alcohol and resulted in the child sustaining a nosebleed.

The accused had a prior finding of guilt for assaulting her mother.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with two years of probation, including conditions requiring continued counselling for alcoholism, parenting counselling, no contact with the complainant except as authorized by Children's Aid Society, and a five-year firearms prohibition.

The court rejected an absolute discharge despite joint submissions, finding that denunciation and deterrence were necessary given the domestic violence context and the involvement of a child.