R. Mitchell Rowe

The applicant, a former president and Life member of the Customs and Immigration Union (CIU), challenged the revocation of his Life membership, claiming it breached the CIU By-laws and seeking reinstatement.

The Court found that Life membership was an honorary status, not contractual, and that its revocation was not justiciable.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, as the relationship did not create enforceable legal rights.

The appellant appealed a decision of the Consent and Capacity Board finding him incapable of consenting to treatment and confirming a Community Treatment Order (CTO).

The appellant argued that the 28-day delay between the signing of the Community Treatment Plan and the issuance of the CTO breached the Mental Health Act.

The Superior Court of Justice applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld the Board's finding that the renewal was made in conformity with the Act, concluding there was no undue delay given the administrative processes involved.

The appellant appealed the cumulative sentence of almost 18 months imposed for criminal harassment and two counts of breaching court orders, arguing it was harsh, excessive, and an error in principle.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial judge's sentence.

The court found the trial judge properly applied sentencing principles, considered aggravating factors such as domestic violence, pre-planning, and lack of remorse, and was entitled to deference in her assessment of the appellant's rehabilitation potential and the fitness of the consecutive sentences.

Following a bifurcated civil trial in which the defendants were found not liable for historic abuse allegations and the plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, the court considered the defendants’ request for costs.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs of $145,000 arising from complex litigation involving extensive documentary disclosure and numerous expert reports.

The court reviewed the purposes of costs awards and the relevant factors under Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, including the defendants’ settlement offers and the litigation’s complexity.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and fairness, the court declined to award the full amount requested but fixed costs in a substantial sum reflecting the defendants’ success and the burden of defending the allegations.

The plaintiff sued her parents alleging repeated physical and emotional abuse during her childhood, including blows to the head, emotional mistreatment, and a failure by the mother to protect her.

The trial was bifurcated under Rule 6.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to determine liability only.

The plaintiff relied primarily on her own testimony, limited third‑party affidavit evidence recounting statements she made in the past, and expert opinions interpreting her medical history and alleged trauma.

The defendants denied the allegations and presented evidence from themselves, their son, and police investigations indicating no corroboration of abuse.

The court found the defendants’ evidence more compelling and concluded that the plaintiff had not proven the alleged assaults, emotional harm, or breaches of fiduciary or protective duties on a balance of probabilities.