Raymond Boggs

The appellants, a police services board and a chief of police, appealed a Divisional Court decision allowing a negligence action against them to proceed.

The respondent alleged he was assaulted by police officers during an arrest and claimed the chief was negligent in supervision and training, and the board was directly and vicariously liable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the chief's appeal, finding the pleadings advanced a tenable claim with sufficient material facts.

The board's appeal was granted in part to strike the direct negligence claims, though the board remains a defendant based on vicarious liability.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and uttering threats, arguing his right to a fair trial was compromised by his inability to hear the proceedings, that the trial judge erred in assessing a witness's credibility regarding text messages, and that the transcript record was incomplete.

The Court of Appeal admitted fresh evidence regarding the appellant's hearing but found his claim that he could not hear the trial was not credible, given the accommodations made and his repeated confirmations that he could hear.

The court also deferred to the trial judge's credibility findings and concluded the transcript deficiencies did not prevent a meaningful appeal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was charged with importation of heroin, conspiracy to import heroin, and possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after picking up a package containing 2.3 kilograms of heroin from a UPS store.

The package had been intercepted and subject to a controlled delivery by the RCMP.

The accused claimed he was picking up the package for a friend and believed it contained auto parts.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as unreasonable and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actual knowledge of the heroin in the package and in his apartment.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The plaintiffs commenced an action for breach of contract in 2018 and the defendant counterclaimed.

After pleadings were exchanged, a trial record was served, and discoveries were held, the plaintiffs brought a motion to stay the action and refer the dispute to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in the parties' agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had waived their right to arbitration by initiating the claim and taking significant steps in the litigation, and that ordering arbitration at this late stage would be unfair to the defendant.

The applicant, charged with possession of fentanyl and hydromorphone for the purpose of trafficking, brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence seized during a search of her residence and a subsequent strip search.

She argued the search warrant was based on inadequate information from a confidential informant.

The court found the warrant was validly issued based on the totality of the information, including surveillance and database checks.

The court also found reasonable and probable grounds existed for the arrest and strip search, and concluded that even if a Charter breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under the Grant framework.

The plaintiff, a 50% shareholder in a condominium maintenance business, brought a motion for a Mareva injunction against her former business partner and his wife, alleging misappropriation of corporate funds to purchase a townhouse.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case that the defendants were dissipating or removing assets from the jurisdiction.

The court noted the defendant's offer to turn over all corporate assets to the plaintiff as compelling evidence against the risk of dissipation.