Speyer

The plaintiff, an elderly widow acting through her litigation guardian, sought to evict her son from her property so she could sell it to fund her long-term care.

The son claimed they had formed an oral contract in 2010 for him to purchase the property and counterclaimed for an interest in the land or unjust enrichment for renovations.

The court found no enforceable contract existed as essential terms were never agreed upon, and the son's actions did not constitute part performance under the Statute of Frauds.

The court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding the son's rent-free living offset any contributions.

The son was ordered to vacate the property.

The accused was tried for the second-degree murder of his mother.

The court previously found that the accused committed the act that caused her death.

The Crown sought to prove that the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

Based on uncontested expert psychiatric evidence, the court found that the accused suffered from treatment-resistant schizophrenia and was experiencing Capgras delusions and command hallucinations at the time of the offence.

The court concluded that the accused was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally wrong, and found him not criminally responsible.

The accused was charged with the second-degree murder of his mother.

The Crown and defence agreed to proceed by way of admissions for much of the evidence.

The court first had to determine whether the accused committed the actus reus of the offence before considering a potential defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

Based on overwhelming forensic, DNA, and circumstantial evidence, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused unlawfully caused the death of the victim by inflicting multiple sharp force injuries.

The applicants, federal inmates, applied for habeas corpus seeking transfers to minimum-security institutions.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Canada, brought a motion under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to summarily dismiss the applications as frivolous, arguing that a refusal to transfer to a lower security classification does not constitute a deprivation of liberty.

The court dismissed the motion, noting that jurisprudence is divided on whether such a refusal amounts to a deprivation of liberty, and therefore the applications were not clearly frivolous or abusive on their face.

Following a judgment declaring a mortgage registered by the respondents to be fraudulent, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court applied the principle of reasonableness and considered an offer to settle made by the applicant.

Finding that the applicant obtained a judgment as favourable as the offer, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, fixing the total costs award at $20,000.

The applicant lender sought a declaration that a prior mortgage registered on the respondents' property was a fraudulent sham designed to defeat its security interest.

The respondent lawyer, who acted for both the borrowers and the applicant, registered multiple mortgages on the property, including one to a corporation controlled by his sister, without disclosing them to the applicant.

The court found the prior mortgage was a sham unsupported by any advancement of funds and ordered the land register rectified to delete the fraudulent charge under the Land Titles Act.