R. Chown

The offender was convicted of possession of one kilogram of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking after being found with the drugs in the footwell of a vehicle.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought 30 months to three years.

The court weighed the significant quantity of drugs as an aggravating factor against the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, family support, and addiction issues as mitigating factors.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, and relying on appellate guidance for similar offences, the court sentenced the offender to five years' imprisonment.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the reasons of a previous judge from the public record, alleging the previous order was tainted by fraud regarding an affidavit of service for an amended statement of defence.

The court found no evidence of fraud, noting the plaintiff failed to prove he did not receive the document and misinterpreted email delivery receipts.

The court further held it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 59.06 to strike another judge's reasons from the public record.

The motion was dismissed with no costs.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for summary judgment after the defendant buyer repudiated a residential real estate agreement within hours of acceptance and failed to pay the $40,000 deposit.

The plaintiffs subsequently sold the property to another buyer for $12,473 less than the defendant's agreed price.

The court conducted a comprehensive review of the law on deposits and relief from forfeiture, concluding that the Stockloser test applies to real estate deposits.

The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to the full $40,000 deposit, as the defendant's breach was not accompanied by unconscionability that would justify relief from forfeiture, despite the deposit exceeding the actual damages.

The offender was convicted by a jury of two counts of sexual assault against his great-great nephew, who was between three and five years old at the time.

The offences involved anal intercourse and a significant breach of trust.

The Crown sought a 14-year consecutive sentence, while the defence proposed four to six years concurrent.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, rejecting the offender's expression of remorse due to his false testimony at trial.

Applying the principle of totality, the court imposed a global concurrent sentence of eight years in custody, along with mandatory weapons, DNA, non-communication, and SOIRA orders.

The plaintiffs, a son and daughter-in-law, took over the operation of the defendants' family dairy farm based on an understanding that they would eventually acquire the farm and milk quota on favourable terms.

After six years of operating the dairy and making significant investments of time and money, the relationship broke down and the plaintiffs were forced to leave.

The plaintiffs sued for unjust enrichment and proprietary estoppel.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched by certain improvements to the property and that the elements of proprietary estoppel were met because the plaintiffs reasonably relied on the defendants' assurances to their detriment.

The court awarded the plaintiffs $405,000 in damages, while allowing $2,000 on the defendants' counterclaim for property damage.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of nearly one kilogram of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a six-year sentence, while the defence sought time served.

The court considered the offender's lengthy criminal record, including prior drug trafficking convictions, as a significant aggravating factor.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, including extensive lockdowns.

The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant accepted the respondent's offer to settle parenting issues, which included a term that the applicant pay costs on a full indemnity basis.

The respondent subsequently claimed over $120,000 in costs.

The court analyzed the principles of full indemnity costs in family law, noting that reasonableness, proportionality, and the reasonable expectations of the paying party still apply.

The court awarded the respondent $49,000 in costs, discounting the claim due to a lack of docket detail, the inclusion of pre-litigation fees, and fees incurred after the offer was accepted.

The plaintiff's counsel requested a further capacity assessment, alleging the appointed assessor conducted the interview in Hindi rather than Punjabi and exhibited bias.

The court dismissed the request, noting the concerns were only raised after the report found the plaintiff lacked capacity.

The court accepted the assessor's finding, declared the plaintiff incapable of instructing counsel, and appointed the Public Guardian and Trustee as litigation guardian pursuant to Rule 7.04.

The plaintiff's counsel failed to attend a scheduled video conference hearing, requesting a last-minute adjournment because a medical assessment report was not ready.

The court adjourned the matter, ordered the plaintiff's counsel to provide a written explanation for his absence and the delay in obtaining hospital records, and issued directions to the assessor to complete the report.

The plaintiff commenced an action against her husband's children and the lawyers who acted for him in prior divorce proceedings, alleging conspiracy, abuse of process, and other torts.

The defendants moved to strike or dismiss the claims under Rule 21.

The court dismissed the claims against the adverse lawyers, finding no duty of care was owed to the plaintiff.

The court also dismissed the tort claims for abuse of process, conspiracy, and intentional interference with economic relations as an abuse of process by relitigation, as they sought to undermine the final settlement reached in the divorce proceedings.

The defamation and intentional infliction of mental suffering claims were struck with leave to amend.

During a proceeding regarding whether payments made by the plaintiff were gifts or loans, concerns arose regarding the plaintiff's capacity to instruct counsel.

The court noted frailties in the plaintiff's evidence and suggestions of undue pressure from family members.

The court ordered a capacity assessment to determine whether a litigation guardian is required under Rule 7.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with the assessment to be funded by the defendants.

The plaintiff brought an ex parte motion to extend the time for service of a statement of claim arising from a slip and fall.

The delay in service was caused by the plaintiff failing to keep her lawyers informed of her contact information, rather than difficulty in serving the defendants.

The court adjourned the motion and directed that the defendants be served with the notice of motion, as it was desirable and preferable for them to be heard on the issue of prejudice.

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting a highly intoxicated complainant who lacked the capacity to consent.

The Crown sought a sentence of three to five years, while the defence sought 12 months.

The court considered the predatory nature of the offence, the accused's concocted story to police, and mitigating factors including his youth, lack of criminal record, and good employment history.

The court sentenced the accused to 28 months' imprisonment, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a no-contact order, and a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order.

A hearing regarding a capacity assessment was scheduled during a trial.

Plaintiff's counsel failed to appear.

The court adjourned the hearing to a later date and noted that the parties had reached an agreement on the identity and funding of a capacity assessor if one is ordered.

During a sexual assault trial, the court held a ruling on whether the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent should be left with the jury.

The alleged assault occurred in a dark room where multiple people were sleeping after consuming alcohol.

The accused claimed the complainant initiated sexual contact, while the complainant testified she awoke to being assaulted and did not consent.

Applying the air of reality test, the court found that the accused's evidence, if assumed true, put the defence in play.

The court ruled the defence would be left with the jury, as it was for the jury to assess whether the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The applicant brought a motion for further disclosure, and the respondent Jamie McDonald brought a motion to suspend or vary a previous order directing the sale of four jointly owned farm properties.

The court granted the disclosure requests, ordering both sides to produce specified financial and operational records, noting that while some information should have been sought during earlier questioning, it was necessary for trial preparation.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to vary the sale order, finding it was an impermissible attempt to re-litigate an issue he had previously elected not to participate in, and that delaying the sale would be unfair to the applicant.

Following a trial, the court raised the issue of whether the plaintiff was a party under disability requiring a litigation guardian.

The Public Guardian and Trustee took no position and stated it lacked authority to investigate.

The defendants indicated an intention to bring a motion for a capacity assessment, which the plaintiff opposed.

The court scheduled a voir dire hearing to determine its jurisdiction to order a capacity assessment, whether one should be ordered, and how it would be funded.

The applicant brought a guardianship application regarding one of the respondents, which was dismissed.

The respondents sought costs.

The court found no reason to depart from the normal rule that costs follow the event.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondents, fixing the costs at $56,224.11 for one respondent and $44,000 for the other, payable by the applicant in three instalments.

The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion for a further examination for discovery of the plaintiff, relying on surveillance footage that allegedly showed the plaintiff working despite his discovery evidence to the contrary.

The defendants argued the plaintiff had a duty to correct his answers under Rule 31.09 or that the surveillance constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff maintained his answers were correct and that the generation of surveillance evidence did not constitute a change in circumstances justifying further discovery.

The parties disputed the funding of their children's post-secondary education.

The children had significant RESPs and large informal trust funds gifted by their maternal grandfather.

The applicant father argued the children had the means to fully fund their education, while the respondent mother argued the parents should still contribute.

The court rejected both all-or-nothing positions, ordering that education costs be funded first by scholarships and RESPs, followed by a $7,500 annual contribution from the parents shared proportionally to their incomes, with the children funding the balance from their own means.