P. Heinen

The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' action for want of jurisdiction and sought their costs.

The plaintiffs argued they were impecunious and that no costs should be awarded.

The court held that impecuniosity does not immunize a party from costs, particularly where the action should not have been brought.

The court declined to award full or substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not reach the required threshold of reprehensible behavior.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the defendants, fixed at $25,000 and $35,000 for fees, plus disbursements and HST.

The accused brought pre-trial applications alleging breaches of their rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter, seeking the exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The police arrested the accused without a warrant based on confidential informant tips and surveillance, finding cocaine and cash.

A subsequent search warrant for the accused's residence yielded more cocaine and cash.

The court found the arrest and warrantless search were based on reasonable grounds and did not violate the Charter.

While there was a technical breach of section 8 due to the late filing of a report to a justice regarding the search warrant, the court held that the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) as the police acted in good faith and society's interest in adjudicating the serious charges on their merits outweighed the impact of the breach.