P. B. Hambly J.

The accused, charged with first degree murder and indignity to human remains, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed release, citing the gravity of the offence and the accused's alleged involvement in drug and firearms trafficking.

The court considered the proposed release plan, which included strict house arrest, electronic monitoring, and a $600,000 surety provided by the accused's mother.

Finding triable issues in the Crown's case and emphasizing the accused's right to make full answer and defence, the court concluded the accused met the onus under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code and granted release on strict conditions.

This was a costs ruling following a discovery motion in which the defendants were successful.

The plaintiff conceded the defendants' entitlement to costs and did not object to the amount claimed.

The court awarded the defendants their requested costs of $9,212.36, consisting of fees and disbursements found to be fair and reasonable.

The accused, charged with possession of controlled substances for the purpose of trafficking, sought a Rowbotham order requiring the state to fund counsel of his choice after Legal Aid refused authorization to replace previously retained counsel.

The court reviewed the legal framework governing state-funded counsel and emphasized that an accused must demonstrate financial inability to retain counsel and that representation is necessary to ensure a fair trial.

The accused failed to provide evidence of financial inability and primarily sought publicly funded counsel of choice after discharging previous counsel.

The court found the case was not overly complex and that the accused was capable of conducting his defence.

The application for state-funded counsel was dismissed, but amicus curiae was appointed to assist the court and ensure the orderly conduct of proceedings.

Adjacent cottage owners disputed ownership of a strip of sandy land between their lots and the plaintiffs claimed title by adverse possession or, alternatively, a prescriptive easement.

The defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim and requiring removal of a shed partially constructed on the disputed land.

The court reviewed the requirements for adverse possession, including actual possession, intention to exclude the true owner, and effective exclusion throughout the statutory period, as well as the principles governing summary judgment.

Although the plaintiffs had used the land for recreational activities and occasional structures, the evidence showed the owners of the registered lot were never excluded and also used the land.

The activities relied upon were not sufficiently proprietary to establish exclusive possession before the expiry of the limitation period, and the shed was constructed after the relevant date.

The court also held the evidence could not satisfy the legal requirements for a prescriptive easement.