Mulligan

The appellant appealed his conviction for operating a motor vehicle 'over 80', arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence regarding his 'slurred' speech when finding the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for a breath demand.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly understood the officer's definition of slurring as 'slow and deliberate speech' and that, even if mistaken, the error was not material to the overall finding of reasonable and probable grounds based on multiple indicia of impairment.

The applicant, charged with drug offences, brought a Charter application to exclude evidence seized during the execution of a search warrant at his motel room.

He argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) was deficient, the no-knock entry was unreasonable, and his rights were breached when he was questioned before being advised of his right to counsel.

The court found the ITO established reasonable grounds based on corroborated confidential informant tips, and the no-knock entry was justified by exigent circumstances.

While the pre-caution questioning breached the applicant's rights, the court applied the Grant framework and concluded the physical evidence should not be excluded, as society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits outweighed the fleeting breach.

The defendant moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims arising from a 1996 motor vehicle accident, arguing the action commenced in 2007 was statute-barred.

The plaintiff contended she did not discover the serious nature of her knee injury until 2007 when she was forced to stop working and required a total knee replacement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that determining when the plaintiff knew or ought to have known she had a serious impairment required a full trial to assess conflicting evidence and credibility.

The plaintiff suffered a debilitating stroke and sued his family physician for medical malpractice, alleging negligence in the management of his Coumadin (blood thinner) therapy.

The court found that the physician breached the standard of care by failing to appropriately adjust the plaintiff's dosage and monitor his INR levels after subtherapeutic readings and a reported transient ischemic attack.

The court concluded that this breach caused the stroke and dismissed the defendant's claim of contributory negligence, finding the plaintiff acted reasonably.

The parties separated after a high-conflict relationship and sought a determination on child custody, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The applicant mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child to another municipality, while the respondent father sought joint custody and to maintain the child in a French immersion school.

The court found that joint custody was inappropriate due to the parents' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, permitted the relocation as it was in the child's best interests, and ordered the child to be transferred to an English school.

The court also calculated the net family property and ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $43,245.

Following the dismissal of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the motion was unreasonable.

The defendant argued no costs should be awarded or, alternatively, sought its own costs for relief resolved prior to the motion.

The court found the defendant's motion was not unreasonable based on the pleadings and awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $7,000, declining to award the defendant costs for the pre-motion resolved issues.