R. Karlstedt

The Crown brought a late application to introduce discreditable conduct evidence after the accused re-elected to be tried by judge alone shortly before trial.

The Crown argued the re-election changed its trial strategy, as it had not intended to put the highly prejudicial evidence before a jury.

The court dismissed the application, refusing to grant leave to extend the time under the Rules of Criminal Practice, finding that admitting the late application would be unfair to the accused, who did not know the case he had to meet, and would likely cause trial delay.

The applicant's family law application was struck due to her failure to comply with undertakings and court orders.

The respondent sought costs on a full recovery basis, citing the applicant's unreasonable behaviour and an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, noting the applicant's difficulties as a self-represented litigant and her inability to discuss the offer to settle with counsel.

The applicant was ordered to pay $17,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs moved to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing their slip and fall action for delay.

The action was dismissed after plaintiffs' counsel failed to set the matter down for trial or respond to a status notice due to inadvertence.

The court applied the Reid criteria and found that while inadvertence was shown, the motion was not brought promptly and the defendants would suffer significant prejudice.

The defendants had lost their ability to crossclaim against a co-defendant who was responsible for maintaining the premises, and maintenance records and witnesses were no longer available.

The motion to set aside the dismissal was dismissed.