O'Bonsawin

The appellant appealed a criminal conviction upheld by the Court of Appeal for Ontario.

The Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal and delivered an oral judgment the same day, unanimously dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction.

Short reasons were indicated to follow.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence, based primarily on the recognition evidence of an unsavoury Vetrovec witness.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to apply the requisite scrutiny to the unsavoury witness's evidence.

The majority held that the trial judge recognized the Vetrovec dangers, applied the requisite scrutiny, and was entitled to accept the recognition evidence without corroboration upon finding it credible and reliable.

The dissent would have allowed the appeal on the basis that the conviction arose from a failure to apply sufficient scrutiny, particularly given that the alleged confession was recounted only after the witness had already identified the accused from surveillance footage.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for partial summary judgment regarding the sale of shares in a family farming business, the parties submitted written arguments on costs.

The respondents sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to the applicant's premature motion and late disclosure.

The court found the applicant's conduct regarding disclosure to be questionable and awarded the respondents costs fixed at $43,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and taxes.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay charges of assault causing bodily harm against the respondent due to unconstitutional delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The trial judge had attributed a six-month delay to the Crown for failing to disclose the child's neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) medical records.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the NICU records were third-party documents held by the hospital, not first-party Crown disclosure, and the delay in requesting them was attributable to the defence.

Alternatively, the court found that the trial judge erred in applying the transitional exception by failing to properly weigh the seriousness of the offence and the moderate complexity of the case.

The stay was lifted and the matter remitted for trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's professional negligence claim, the successful self-represented defendant sought costs.

The court found that the plaintiff had unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings by taking numerous unnecessary procedural steps.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and recognizing that self-represented litigants may be awarded costs, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs fixed at $60,000 inclusive of HST.

The plaintiff sued his former lawyer for professional negligence regarding a child protection matter.

The defendant lawyer brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiff was aware of the material facts, including settlement offers, more than two years before commencing the action.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action as statute-barred.