R. MacDonald

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add Wynn's Property Maintenance Ltd. as a defendant in a slip and fall action, and initially sought to add two other corporate entities but abandoned that request.

Wynn's opposed the motion, arguing the limitation period had expired.

The court found that the claim against Wynn's was discovered on February 4, 2019, when the plaintiff's counsel was informed of Wynn's identity.

Due to the suspension of limitation periods under the Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, the motion was brought within time, and leave to add Wynn's was granted.

The court also awarded $3,500 in costs to the two corporate entities that the plaintiff abandoned its motion against, finding the plaintiff failed to conduct proper due diligence before seeking to add them.

The offender was convicted of second degree murder after killing the victim and disposing of his body by throwing him off a bridge.

The Crown sought a 16-year period of parole ineligibility, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court considered the egregious circumstances, including the offender's attempts to rob the victim and conceal the body, balanced against his community support and tentative rehabilitation steps.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with a 13.5-year period of parole ineligibility.

The applicant, Mohamed Abdul-Hamid, brought a Charter application under ss. 8, 9, and 24(2) to exclude a kilogram of cocaine found in his vehicle following a gunpoint arrest.

The police had conducted surveillance based on confidential informant tips regarding a co-accused, Michele Santonato, and observed a suspected drug transaction involving a shoebox handed off by another co-accused, Christopher Italiano, to the applicant.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant based on the totality of the circumstances, including the informant tips and police surveillance.

The court also held that the subsequent search of the applicant's vehicle was a valid search incident to arrest.

The Charter applications were dismissed.

Police conducted surveillance on a residence linked through confidential informants to a suspected large‑scale cocaine trafficker.

Officers observed an individual leave the residence carrying a shoebox, meet briefly with the accused in a vehicle, and transfer the box before the accused drove away.

The accused was arrested shortly afterward and police discovered a kilogram of cocaine in the shoebox during a vehicle search.

The accused argued the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds and that the search violated ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court held that the informant information, combined with police surveillance and the officer’s experience in drug investigations, established objectively reasonable grounds for arrest and justified the search incident to arrest.

The Charter application was dismissed and the seized cocaine was admitted as evidence.