Platana

The moving party (former husband) brought a motion to change, seeking to vary and terminate spousal support payable to the responding party (former wife).

He argued that his income had decreased, her income had increased due to RRSP withdrawals, and she was capable of working.

The responding party argued her health conditions (fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome) prevented her from working and her income had not materially changed.

The court found no material change in the moving party's income, noting his business had returned to previous levels and he continued to make maximum RRSP contributions.

The court also declined to impute income to the responding party, finding her health issues prevented employment and her RRSP withdrawals were necessary for expenses.

The motion to change was dismissed.

The accused was charged with break and enter, robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, uttering threats, and breach of probation following a violent home invasion.

The accused claimed he was invited into the residence to discuss a drug debt and acted in self-defence after the victim pointed a shotgun at him.

The court rejected the accused's evidence, finding he forced entry, initiated the assault, and acted in concert with a co-accused to steal property and confine the victim.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic in cocaine and marijuana, trafficking, and participating in a criminal organization.

The Crown's case relied heavily on police surveillance, tracking devices, and intercepted messages from an encrypted PGP cellphone.

The court found that the accused used specific monikers in the encrypted communications to coordinate the shipment of drugs and money.

The court concluded that the accused actively assisted both the seller and purchaser in drug transactions and contributed to the activities of a structured criminal organization.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim and set-off claims, arguing that the two-year limitation period had expired, the issues were res judicata, and the claims constituted an abuse of process.

The dispute arose from a long-standing business relationship involving bank loan guarantees and a life insurance policy.

The court applied the Hryniak framework and found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial, including evidentiary gaps regarding the limitation period, potential waiver or estoppel, and the applicability of equitable set-off.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The applicant sought to excise paragraphs from an Information to Obtain (ITO) a Production Order and search warrant for his residence.

The applicant argued that the information was obtained through an unlawful search of a third party's cell phone, which had previously been ruled a breach of the third party's s. 8 Charter rights.

The court dismissed the application, holding that an accused must establish an independent privacy interest in the evidence to have standing to seek excision based on a Charter breach.

Since the applicant had no expectation of privacy in the messages on the third party's phone, he could not rely on the third party's s. 8 breach to seek a remedy under s. 24(2).

The applicants, two Aboriginal men facing murder charges, brought a pre-trial application challenging the representativeness of the 2015 Thunder Bay jury roll under ss. 11(d) and 11(f) of the Charter.

They argued the state failed to make reasonable efforts to obtain source lists and deliver jury notices to on-reserve First Nations residents.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in Kokopenace, the court reviewed the state's efforts, including the creation of an Aboriginal Jury Coordinator position, pilot projects offering compensation to bands for lists and delivery, and follow-ups on returned mail.

The court found that the state made reasonable efforts and provided a fair opportunity for a broad cross-section of society to participate, dismissing the application.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a police officer charged with assault causing bodily harm following the 'grounding' of an arrested individual in a holding cell.

The Crown argued the trial judge exhibited a reasonable apprehension of bias by prejudging the lawfulness of the initial arrest under the Liquor License Act before hearing submissions.

The Superior Court of Justice agreed, finding the trial judge's comments created a perception that he had prematurely decided the issue.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.