Peter Karsten

This decision addresses a stunt driving charge under subsection 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, focusing on the reliability of radar speed readings and the credibility of evidence from both the police officer and the accused.

The court applied the three-part test from R. v S. (W.D.) to assess credibility and reasonable doubt.

The officer's evidence regarding radar speed readings was found inconsistent and unreliable, particularly due to the deletion of elevated speed readings when switching radar modes and lack of corroborating visual observations.

The accused's evidence about operating a vehicle with a built-in radar detector and dash camera recordings was accepted as credible.

The prosecution failed to prove the essential element of elevated speed beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario allowed the appeal, set aside the summary judgment, and awarded costs to the appellants.

The court found that the motion judge erred in law by holding that the purchasers' requisitions regarding oil and gas leases were invalid because they did not go to the root of title.

The court was not satisfied that it could determine the validity of the requisitions on the record before it.

The court considered a motion by the Defendants to strike portions of the Plaintiffs’ amended claim or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim for an easement for drainage.

The court found that while the Plaintiffs’ pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the easement claim.

The Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to define the easement with adequate specificity or to show that an easement of necessity or by common intention existed at the time of severance.

The claim for an easement for drainage was summarily dismissed.

The plaintiffs, vendors of a property, moved for summary judgment against the defendants, purchasers, for breach of an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (APS).

The defendants failed to close the deal, citing an unfulfilled requisition regarding oil and gas leases on title.

The court found that the oil and gas leases did not go to the root of title, and therefore, the unfulfilled requisition did not provide a valid defence for the defendants' failure to close.

The court granted summary judgment on both liability and damages, finding that the plaintiffs had reasonably mitigated their losses by reselling the property.

Damages were assessed based on the difference in sale prices and other related expenses, excluding claims for personal time, mileage, and storage.

The appellant, Simplicity Air Ltd., appealed a jury award of punitive damages to the respondent, Daniel Eynon, for workplace injuries.

The jury had awarded general damages and lost wages, reduced by 75% for contributory negligence, and $150,000 in punitive damages.

The appeal addressed whether punitive damages were properly left to the jury, errors in instructions, employer liability for employee conduct, and the quantum of the award.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's instructions were adequate, the employer was liable for supervisory misconduct, and the punitive damages award was not irrational or inordinately large, especially given the employer's instruction to falsely report the accident.