Pierre Lambert-Bélanger

The appellant, Royce Bilusak, appealed his convictions on seven counts, including mischief, theft, and breach of undertaking, stemming from a dispute with a neighbour.

The Crown conceded the appeal for four counts (two theft, two mischief related to bricks and a fence) due to a colour of right argument based on a survey, citing judicial efficiency.

The appeal proceeded on the remaining two counts: mischief for obstructing property enjoyment and breach of undertaking for attending a prohibited address.

The court dismissed the appeal on these two counts, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings, no apprehension of bias, and no misapplication of the W.(D.) test.

The court also rejected the appellant's argument that being on a city road allowance within a driveway negated the breach of undertaking, emphasizing a common-sense interpretation of the condition.

The accused, M.C.D., faced 13 charges, including assault and sexual assault, involving his former spouse and two children.

Three charges were withdrawn by the Crown.

The court acquitted the accused of the remaining charges, finding significant issues with the credibility and reliability of the Crown's witnesses (the former spouse and children).

The judge noted numerous inconsistencies, embellishments, improbabilities, and evidence of collusion in their testimonies, which created a reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt.

Stephanie Slack pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl.

The Crown sought a provincial custodial sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence based on the defendant's significant rehabilitation.

The court, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for fentanyl trafficking but also considering rehabilitation, determined that a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by two years probation, was appropriate.

The judge found that a conditional sentence, with sufficiently punitive conditions, could achieve the sentencing objectives without hindering the defendant's progress in recovery and employment, even if exceptional circumstances were not strictly required.

The accused was charged with trafficking fentanyl, criminal negligence causing death, and manslaughter following the overdose death of an acquaintance.

In pretrial motions, the Crown sought to admit two police statements, while the defence sought to exclude the statements and text messages found on the deceased's cell phone.

The court found the statements were voluntary and not obtained in breach of s. 10 of the Charter.

However, the court ruled that the warrantless search of the deceased's cell phone at the scene violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

The court excised the text messages from the search warrant information, found the remaining grounds insufficient, and excluded the text message evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused faced a judge-alone trial on historical sexual offence allegations involving a complainant who was a child at the time of the alleged incidents.

Applying the W. (D.) framework, the court accepted the accused's denial evidence and found that, in any event, the complainant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies, improbabilities, and reliability concerns, with related supporting evidence also not accepted in material respects.

The court held that the Crown had not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The appellant school board appealed a trial judgment finding it breached its obligation to treat bidders equally and fairly during a tendering process.

The respondent, an unsuccessful bidder, alleged the successful bid was non-compliant because the bidder provided a letter of credit instead of the required performance bonds.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the tender documents only required performance bonds upon acceptance of the bid.

The successful bid was compliant when submitted, forming Contract A. The appellant's acceptance formed Contract B, discharging obligations to the respondent.

The subsequent modification to accept a letter of credit did not breach the respondent's contractual rights.

The appellant appealed a trial decision dismissing its action and allowing the respondents' counterclaim for rescission of an agreement for the removal of sand and gravel from the respondents' property.

The trial judge rescinded the agreement on the basis of unconscionability, noting the unequal bargaining power, lack of independent legal advice, and the fact that the unilingual francophone respondents were presented with an English agreement containing overreaching terms.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's credibility findings, his rejection of the laches defence, or his award of $4,000 for unjust enrichment.

The appeal was dismissed.