Paul Harte

The court issued a supplementary endorsement to address the costs of an appeal that was previously allowed.

The court fixed the costs of the appeal and the application below at $10,500, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the respondents to the appellant.

The appellant appealed an order declaring that the respondent had no legal obligation to terminate her second-trimester pregnancy to mitigate damages in a wrongful birth action.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration, finding that the issue was not a pure question of law suitable for determination on the pleadings under Rule 20.01(1)(a).

Instead, it was a question of mixed fact and law that required a full factual record at trial.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for sexual assault and sought production of the Crown brief from the defendant's related criminal proceedings.

The criminal trial had been stayed, and the defendant's statements to the police had been excluded due to a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Divisional Court's creation of a screening mechanism, requiring notice to the Attorney General and police before a Crown brief can be produced in civil proceedings.

However, the Court of Appeal reversed the Divisional Court's ruling that the defendant's excluded police statements were shielded from production, holding that the criminal rule of automatic exclusion for conscriptive evidence does not apply in the civil discovery context.

The plaintiff sued the defendant doctor for sexual assault.

Criminal charges against the defendant were stayed, but during the criminal proceedings, the defendant received a Crown Disclosure Brief, which included a statement he made to police that was ruled inadmissible due to a s. 10(b) Charter violation.

In the civil action, the plaintiff sought production of the Crown Brief.

The Divisional Court held that while the existence of the Crown Brief must be disclosed, its contents should not be produced until the Attorney General and relevant police service are notified and either consent or a court orders production.

Furthermore, the defendant's Charter-infringing statement to police was protected from production in the civil proceeding.

The plaintiff brought a civil action for damages for sexual assault against the defendant, whose criminal charges for the same allegations were stayed.

The plaintiff sought production of the Crown Disclosure Brief from the criminal proceedings, which included a statement the defendant made to police that was ruled inadmissible in criminal court due to a breach of his s. 10(b) Charter rights.

The Divisional Court held that while the existence of the Crown Brief must be disclosed, its contents should not be produced without a screening mechanism involving the Attorney General and police to protect public interest.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the defendant's Charter-infringing statement to police was protected from production in the civil proceeding.