Ross C. Stewart

The moving party, the deceased's grandson and sole beneficiary, sought to be appointed as estate trustee pursuant to the deceased's will.

The respondent, who claimed to be the deceased's secret spouse, objected to the appointment based on the moving party's criminal record and a conflict of interest, as the respondent intended to make equalization and support claims against the estate.

The court found that while the moving party's criminal past alone might not disqualify him, his position as sole beneficiary created a significant conflict of interest with the respondent's claims against the estate.

The court passed over the moving party and appointed the lawyer who drafted the will as an independent estate trustee.

The defendant corporation was charged with three offences under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for violations discovered at a residential building following a fire on April 3, 2009.

The charges involved: (1) providing devices on required doors that could prevent them from being readily opened from the inside; (2) failing to maintain the fire alarm system in operating condition; and (3) failing to maintain smoke alarms in operating condition.

The prosecution proved the actus reus of all three charges.

The defendant raised a due diligence defence, arguing it had taken reasonable care.

The court found the defendant's fire prevention plan was inadequate, haphazard, and reactive rather than preventive, with poor coordination and no regular monitoring.

The defendant failed to meet its burden of proving due diligence and was convicted on all three charges.

Following a bifurcated family law and civil assault trial, the court determined the appropriate costs award between the parties.

The respondent succeeded on a damages claim arising from an assault and obtained damages, future care costs, and prejudgment interest, while the applicant obtained a modest additional equalization payment relating to disputed chattels.

The court considered offers to settle, the parties’ conduct under the Family Law Rules, and the proportionality of costs to the issues and outcome.

Full indemnity costs were declined because the result was less favourable than an earlier formal offer to settle.

The court awarded substantial partial indemnity costs for the damages claim, offset by limited costs payable to the applicant for the chattels claim and an adjournment caused by deficient pleadings.

Addendum to reasons for decision correcting the allocation of sentence between offences in a criminal matter.

The court confirmed that the amended warrant of committal properly reflected the distribution of the total sentence across the offences.

The total custodial sentence remained seven years after applying four years of pre‑sentence custody credit.

The addendum clarified that the amended warrant accurately corresponds with the earlier reasons for decision.

The child protection agency brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order placing a child in the custody of the maternal grandfather under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had lived with the grandfather under society supervision for over three years and was doing well in that placement.

One parent opposed the motion and sought delay to demonstrate rehabilitation from substance abuse and criminal issues, arguing the matter should proceed to trial.

The court held that the responding party failed to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 and that the child’s need for permanency and stability outweighed the request for additional time.

Summary judgment was granted placing the child in the grandfather’s sole custody with parental access at the grandfather’s discretion.

The parties separated after a short-term marriage following an incident where the respondent suffered a severely fractured wrist.

The trial addressed the division of net family property, specifically missing items the applicant claimed were in the respondent's possession, and the respondent's civil claim for damages for assault and battery.

The court found the applicant failed to prove the respondent retained most of the missing property, but added $10,000 to the equalization payment for missing silver.

On the tort claim, the court found the applicant committed battery by throwing the respondent out of the house, causing her injury.

The court awarded the respondent $65,000 in general and aggravated damages, $25,000 for loss of competitive advantage, and specific future care costs to be calculated.

The appellant appealed his sentence following convictions for a brutal, unprovoked assault on his common-law partner, as well as assaults on another individual and the police.

The Court of Appeal noted that the trial judge should have given the appellant pre-trial credit for months seven and eight on a one-for-one basis.

However, the Court concluded that the overall sentence of five years, after crediting one year for pre-trial custody, was entirely fit given the seriousness of the offences.

The appeal was dismissed.

The parties agreed that critical and further evidence respecting the best interests of the child needed to be presented, which was not presented before the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on consent and ordered a new trial on the issue of mobility.

The Crown appealed a 9-month sentence imposed on the respondent for sexually molesting his stepdaughter over a three-year period.

The victim was between nine and twelve years old.

The Court of Appeal found the sentence demonstrably unfit given the intrusive nature of the conduct and the blatant breach of trust.

The appeal was allowed and the sentence was varied to two years less a day in custody, followed by the probation order imposed at trial.

The respondent brought a motion to strike the appellant's Notice of Appeal as an abuse of process, or alternatively to lift the stay of execution or order security for costs.

The appellant's counsel had instructed the court reporter to stop transcribing the trial proceedings without obtaining a court order, delaying the appeal while the appellant attempted to protect his assets from the respondent's judgment.

The Court of Appeal found the conduct serious and capable of justifying striking the appeal.

However, the court opted for a less onerous remedy, ordering the appellant to post $21,000 in security for costs and expediting the transcript.