Sirpal Randhawa

Following an appeal concerning a provincial offence, both parties sought costs.

The Court of Appeal declined to award costs to either party.

The court noted that under the Provincial Offences Act, the general rule is that costs are not awarded in provincial offence appeals.

Furthermore, the appeal raised a novel issue of public importance regarding the interpretation of 'occupier', making a costs award inappropriate.

The appellant, a leaseholder of a parcel within a large private property owned by a corporation, was charged with driving an off-road vehicle in the common area without a helmet, contrary to the Off-Road Vehicles Act.

He argued he was exempt from the helmet requirement because he was an 'occupier' of the common area.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant was not an occupier of the common area, as he did not have physical possession, responsibility for its condition, or control over who could enter it.

The appeal was dismissed and the conviction upheld.

In long‑running commercial litigation concerning an alleged oral agreement granting the plaintiffs a 50% interest in a casino development project, the parties brought pre‑trial motions addressing potential conflicts of interest involving defence counsel and issue estoppel relating to alleged spoliation of evidence.

The plaintiffs clarified that their spoliation allegations were directed only at the defendants and not at defence counsel, and that they would not seek to call defence counsel as witnesses.

The court treated these statements as binding admissions and issued declarations preventing the plaintiffs from alleging misconduct, spoliation, or false statements by defence counsel at trial.

Remaining issues, including whether issue estoppel barred certain spoliation arguments, were left for determination by the trial judge.