Thomas N. Basciano

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittal on a charge of attempted murder and the sentence imposed for a manslaughter conviction arising from a barroom shooting.

The Court of Appeal allowed the acquittal appeal, finding the trial judge erred by leaving self-defence under s. 34(2) of the Criminal Code to the jury when there was no air of reality to the claim that the intervening bystanders were committing an unlawful assault.

The trial judge also erred by failing to instruct the jury on s. 27, which permits bystanders to use force to prevent an offence.

A new trial was ordered for the attempted murder charge.

The sentence appeals by both the Crown and the accused were dismissed.

The respondent Bank brought a motion for security for costs of an appeal.

The appellants had previously commenced an action against the Bank which was struck, and a costs order of $5,000 remained unpaid.

The appellants then commenced a second, almost identical action which was struck on the basis of res judicata, and appealed that decision.

The Court of Appeal granted the Bank's motion under Rule 61.06(1)(c), finding good reason to order security for costs as the appellants had ignored the prior costs order and failed to disclose the second action to the court during the first proceeding.

The Applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits.

The Insurer terminated benefits after the Applicant returned to work full-time for over 90 days following the two-year anniversary of the accident, relying on section 16(2) of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

On a preliminary issue, the Arbitrator found that while the Applicant had worked for a continuous period of 90 days, section 16(2) does not automatically preclude a claim for further benefits.

Instead, it shifts the onus to the Applicant to re-establish the causal link between the accident and the disability.

The preliminary objection was dismissed.