3 total
The court validated service and awarded substantial indemnity costs after the defendant's lawyer unreasonably refused to accept service.
The Plaintiff brought a motion to validate service of a statement of claim on the Defendant, Shakil Ahmad, or alternatively for substituted service or to dispense with service.
The core issue was the Defendant's lawyer's refusal to accept service despite being retained and engaging in substantive discussions.
The court found the lawyer's conduct to be contrary to professional obligations and the principles of expeditious proceedings.
The motion to validate service was granted, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on a substantial indemnity basis due to the unnecessary nature of the motion caused by the Defendant's conduct.
Accused acquitted of firearm charges as Crown failed to prove knowledge and control of handgun in shared garage.
The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after police found a loaded handgun wrapped in a t-shirt in his family's garage.
The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance showing the accused and an associate in the garage, and photographs of the associate with a handgun.
The accused testified that he had no knowledge of the handgun and that multiple people had access to the unlocked garage.
The court found the accused's evidence unpersuasive but concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the firearm.
The accused was acquitted of all charges.
Handgun evidence admitted despite invalid warrant, but cell phone contents excluded due to lack of informed consent.
The applicants, charged with firearms offences, brought applications to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, alleging their s. 8 rights were violated by invalid search warrants and an unauthorized cell phone search.
The court found the search warrant for one applicant's residence was valid, but the warrant for the other applicant's residence was invalid due to insufficient corroboration of a confidential informant's tip.
However, the court admitted the handgun found at the second residence under s. 24(2).
Regarding the first applicant's cell phone, the court found the police searched it without informed consent, violating his s. 8 rights, and excluded the cell phone contents under s. 24(2).
