Norman M. Karam

The appellant appealed a conviction for operating a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug.

Police found the appellant asleep at the wheel of a running vehicle.

While there was overwhelming evidence of impairment, the Crown failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the impairment was caused by a drug.

The court found no evidence, other than labels on pill bottles, that the bottles contained the stated drugs or that those drugs were in the appellant's system.

The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was dismissed.

The respondent husband brought a motion to reduce spousal support following his retirement and significant reduction in employment income.

The court considered the parties’ financial circumstances, including the husband’s pension income, the earlier equalization of pension benefits, and the recipient spouse’s medical inability to work.

Relying on the principles articulated in Boston v. Boston, the court held that while the payor was entitled to some reduction in support after retirement, the recipient’s ongoing financial needs and lack of income remained significant.

Balancing these considerations, the court reduced the spousal support payable from $2400 per month to $1350 per month commencing January 1, 2014.

Multiple plaintiffs brought a civil action for damages arising from assault, battery, and intentional infliction of mental suffering following repeated incidents of non-consensual sexual touching and degrading sexual harassment by a neighbour during social interactions.

The defendant did not defend the action and failed to appear at trial.

The court found that repeated non-consensual touching constituted battery and that accompanying degrading remarks and intimidation caused reasonable apprehension of further sexual battery, amounting to assault and intentional infliction of mental suffering.

Although several plaintiffs described psychological impacts, no expert medical evidence was presented.

The court awarded modest general damages reflecting the seriousness of the conduct but the limited evidentiary record and relatively short duration of events.

An offender convicted of two counts of first degree murder applied for a reduction in the period of parole ineligibility under the faint hope provisions of the Criminal Code.

At the judicial screening stage, the court assessed whether there was a substantial likelihood that a jury would unanimously recommend a reduction in parole ineligibility.

Although the applicant had maintained relatively positive institutional conduct and was assessed as a low risk to public safety, he continued to deny responsibility for the murders and expressed no remorse.

Given the extreme violence, planning, and multiple-victim nature of the offences, the court concluded that a properly instructed jury would not likely reduce the parole ineligibility period.

The application was dismissed at the screening stage.

The defendant insurer brought a motion seeking two defence medical examinations by an orthopedic specialist and an occupational therapist and production of the clinical notes and records underlying two expert reports recently served by the plaintiff.

The action arose from a 1994 motor vehicle accident and a dispute over termination of statutory accident benefits.

The court held that the defendant had previously obtained numerous medical assessments and had set the matter down for trial, indicating readiness to proceed on the existing evidence.

In the absence of evidence demonstrating a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances, the defendant failed to meet the threshold required to reopen interlocutory steps.

The request for production of underlying clinical notes and records was also rejected.

The biological father brought a motion seeking interim access to a child conceived through artificial insemination pursuant to a prior donor agreement in which he purported to relinquish parental rights.

The respondent mother opposed access and relied on the existing status quo in which the child had never met the biological father.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24(2) of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court acknowledged the importance of biological relationships but emphasized the principle of maintaining the status quo on interim motions.

Given the child's young age and the proximity of the scheduled trial date, the court found that introducing the applicant at the interim stage risked confusion and potential harm.

The motion for interim access and related requests were dismissed.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal to the Divisional Court from an order granting the plaintiff leave to amend a statement of claim to plead a specific act of negligence relating to an aircraft crash.

They argued that the amendment introduced a new cause of action that was statute‑barred.

The court held that the original pleading invoking res ipsa loquitur already raised an inference of negligence and that specifying engine failure due to fuel starvation or exhaustion did not constitute a new cause of action.

Applying Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found no conflicting authority warranting appellate review and no reason to doubt the correctness of the order.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.