Ranbir Mann

The plaintiff advanced substantial sums of money to the defendants and to third parties on their behalf, and claimed either a proprietary interest in two real properties purchased by one defendant, or repayment of the loans.

The court, after a summary trial on affidavit evidence with cross-examination, found that all transfers were loans and that no constructive or resulting trust arose in favour of the plaintiff, as the advances constituted a juristic reason precluding unjust enrichment, and the plaintiff's own conduct — demanding repayment rather than asserting ownership — negated any intention to hold a beneficial interest.

The court further rejected the counterclaim for want of documentary evidence.

Judgment was granted against each defendant separately for the sums advanced to them individually, as the debts were not established to be joint.

The appellant appealed a conviction for driving with excess blood alcohol, arguing that the trial judge erred in relying on pre‑Charter roadside statements, improperly accepted police testimony about statements not recorded in the officer’s notebook or disclosure, reversed the burden on a Charter application, and wrongly concluded the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make an Intoxilyzer demand.

The court held that roadside statements may be used on a Charter application to assess the reasonableness of the officer’s grounds.

The absence of notebook entries does not automatically render police evidence unreliable and credibility findings are owed deference on appeal.

Considering the circumstances, including the approved screening device result and the officer’s belief about recent consumption, the trial judge’s findings were open on the evidence.

The applicant tenant sought damages for wrongful distress after the respondent landlord changed the locks and seized property for rent arrears.

The landlord counter-applied for rent arrears and property damage.

The court found that while the landlord had a right to distrain due to chronic rent arrears, it failed to prove the distress was executed during daylight hours, rendering it unlawful.

The tenant was awarded $10,000 for wrongful distress.

The landlord was awarded $89,060 for rent arrears, lost rent due to lack of notice, and property remediation costs, resulting in a net award to the landlord.