P. Roger

The plaintiff brought a motion opposing the confirmation of a certificate of assessment delivered by an assessment officer regarding his former lawyer's fees.

The plaintiff argued the assessment officer made unreasonable errors in principle, including findings about the termination of the retainer and the lawyer's hourly rates.

The court found no legal error, misapprehension of evidence, palpable factual error, or unreasonable assessment, noting that assessment officers are owed deference.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused brought a section 525 review of his detention.

He was facing charges including human trafficking, bank robbery, and possession of a stolen vehicle, and was arrested for breaching strict release conditions, including house arrest and GPS monitoring.

The court found that the continued detention of the accused was justified under the secondary ground, as he posed a substantial likelihood of re-offending even under the proposed strict conditions of release.

The defendants moved to discharge a construction lien, arguing the plaintiff contractor abandoned the contract more than 60 days before registering the lien.

The court agreed, finding the plaintiff ceased work and demanded payment before returning, constituting abandonment.

The lien was discharged, and the action was ordered to continue as an ordinary action.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to post $27,500 in security for costs, as it failed to prove impecuniosity.

The plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to maintain the action under the Business Names Act was granted, but its motion to strike the defendants' counterclaim for breach of trust and oppression was dismissed.

The appellant, an involuntary patient with schizophrenia, appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment.

The appellant argued the Board applied the wrong legal test and made unreasonable findings regarding his risk of violence and appreciation of the treatment decision.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the Board correctly applied the test from Starson v. Swayze and reasonably concluded that the appellant's condition prevented him from recognizing its manifestations and appreciating the consequences of his decision.

The appellant, representing himself, brought a motion requesting state-funded counsel and state-paid transcripts for his summary conviction appeal pursuant to sections 683(1) and 684(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court assessed the appellant's financial circumstances, noting he receives a federal pension, owns a home and vacant land with significant equity, and has access to financial help from family.

Finding that the appellant has sufficient resources to pay the estimated $14,000 for counsel and transcripts, and noting the apparent weakness of the appeal, the court concluded it was not in the interests of justice to grant the requests.

The motion was dismissed and a timetable for the appeal was set.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice in a motor vehicle accident claim, arguing prejudice due to the indefinite suspension of civil jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court granted leave to hear the motion and took judicial notice of the fact that while a judge-alone trial could be scheduled in the near future, the timeline for resuming civil jury trials was unknown.

Balancing the substantive right to a jury trial against the need for a timely and affordable resolution, the court struck the jury notice but allowed the parties the option to return to court if a jury trial becomes available before the scheduled judge-alone trial.