M. Tubie

The appellant was convicted of impaired driving causing a head-on collision and sentenced to a six-month conditional sentence and a three-year driving prohibition.

He appealed the sentence, arguing the trial judge erred by sentencing him remotely while he was in the hospital with COVID-19 instead of granting an adjournment.

The Crown applied for summary dismissal of the appeal under s. 685 of the Criminal Code.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the Crown's application, finding the appeal was frivolous and bound to fail, as the trial judge exercised proper discretion in proceeding with the sentencing and the sentence imposed was not demonstrably unfit.

The plaintiffs brought a reference to determine damages after the defendants breached an agreement of purchase and sale for a residential property.

The court found the property was unique to the plaintiffs given their specific criteria and the rising real estate market.

Applying the principles from Semelhago, the court assessed damages based on the difference in appreciation between the breached property and a substitute property the plaintiffs subsequently purchased.

The plaintiffs were awarded $150,000 in additional damages, plus thrown-away expenses and substantial indemnity costs due to the defendants' egregious conduct.

The applicant and her co-tenant signed a commercial lease for a basement unit to operate a restaurant.

Shortly after, the co-tenant was incarcerated.

The applicant attempted to access the premises but was repeatedly denied entry by the landlord, who demanded confirmation from the incarcerated co-tenant.

The applicant sought a declaration that the lease was terminated due to fundamental breach.

The court found that the landlord improperly refused access, depriving the applicant of substantially the whole benefit of the lease.

The application was granted, the lease was declared terminated, and the applicant was permitted to retrieve her equipment and receive a refund of her rent deposit.

Following competing motions regarding the jointly owned matrimonial home, both parties sought costs.

The respondent had successfully moved to refinance the property, while the applicant's motion for immediate partition and sale was dismissed.

The court found that the applicant acted unreasonably by attempting to resile from a prior agreement regarding the refinancing.

The respondent was awarded costs fixed at $3,500.