Roy M. Respicio

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct in a domestic violence case involving charges of assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, sexual assault with a weapon, and sexual assault causing bodily harm.

The defence opposed, arguing the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value.

The court applied the test for admissibility of prior discreditable conduct, finding three of the four proposed instances relevant and admissible to provide narrative context and demonstrate animus, with limiting instructions to the jury.

One instance, the "bathtub incident," was excluded due to its highly inflammatory nature and potential for reasoning prejudice.

The Applicant Mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking permission to relocate with the parties' three-year-old son to Alberta, along with primary care, sole decision-making authority, and child support.

The Respondent Father opposed the motion, arguing for primary residence and challenging the relocation.

The court found that the Applicant had the "vast majority of time" with the child, shifting the onus to the Respondent to demonstrate why the move was not in the child's best interests.

The court dismissed the Respondent's arguments, finding no genuine issue for trial, and granted the Applicant's motion in full, including increased child support and a dollar-for-dollar credit for the Respondent's parenting time costs.

The defendant was charged with theft of a complainant's money and possession of stolen property.

The defendant admitted to using the complainant's credit and debit cards to make purchases totaling $1,207.43, but claimed the complainant had consented and given her the cards as gifts.

The court rejected the defendant's evidence as implausible, finding that the timing, frequency, and nature of the card usage, combined with the significant age difference and the complainant's medical condition, demonstrated the defendant did not have consent.

The court found the defendant guilty of fraud and possession of stolen property but acquitted her of theft of the cards themselves due to insufficient evidence regarding how she obtained them.

Following a successful summary judgment motion, the plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs.

The defendants challenged the plaintiff's bill of costs, arguing for a reduction and a split between partial and substantial indemnity scales, particularly for the pre-summary judgment stages.

The court, considering the defendants' serious misconduct and scurrilous attack on the plaintiff's reputation, awarded substantial indemnity costs throughout the proceeding.

However, the total amount was reduced from the plaintiff's requested $109,122.98 to $90,000, inclusive of disbursements and taxes, payable by the media defendants.

The plaintiff, Senator Tobias Enverga Jr., brought a motion for summary judgment against Balita Newspaper, Balita Media Inc., and Tess Cusipag for defamation.

The defamatory publications, including an article and Facebook posts, accused Senator Enverga of criminal fraud, being a "biological liar" and "pathological liar," and misrepresenting the charitable status of his foundation.

The court found the words defamatory and dismissed the defendants' defences of justification and fair comment, as they failed to prove the truth of the allegations and conducted no independent investigation.

The court awarded the plaintiff $150,000 in general and aggravated damages, $100,000 in punitive damages, and issued a permanent injunction against the defendants to prevent further defamatory publications, citing their malicious conduct and refusal to retract or apologize.

Following the dismissal of a family law motion seeking certificates of pending litigation over properties and the addition of the respondent’s parents as parties, the court determined the appropriate costs awards.

The court found the motion against the parents to have been recklessly pursued because the issues had already been litigated and no material change justified revisiting them.

Substantial costs were awarded to the parents due to their complete success and the unreasonable conduct of the moving party.

The respondent spouse, who largely took no position on the motion, received a reduced costs award reflecting limited participation and proportionality principles.