T. Nieckarz

The plaintiff was successful in dismissing the defendant's second motion for leave to be represented by an individual.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs of $2,892.80.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 and awarded the plaintiff $2,000 inclusive, noting the motion required less extensive preparation than the first motion.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought a motion for an order to preserve real property under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001, pending a forfeiture application.

The property was alleged to be an instrument of unlawful activity, specifically a location for illegal drug sales.

The self-represented respondent sought multiple adjournments but failed to file responding materials.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the property was an instrument of unlawful activity based on police evidence of drug trafficking and granted the preservation order.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid invoices totaling approximately $35,000 relating to a new home build.

The parties had an oral "time and materials" contract.

The defendants counterclaimed, alleging overcharges for labour, improper 15% mark-ups on materials and subcontractors, and damages for deficient work.

The court found the agreed labour rate was $60/hour for the primary carpenters and $40/hour for general labourers.

The court disallowed the 15% mark-up on materials as it was not an express or implied term, but allowed the mark-up on most subcontractors on a quantum meruit basis.

The defendants' counterclaim for deficiencies was dismissed for lack of proof.

The plaintiff was granted judgment subject to set-offs for the disallowed mark-ups, and a declaration for a construction lien.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The accused faced three counts of sexual assault.

The total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The Crown argued that the delay was justified by exceptional circumstances, specifically the COVID-19 pandemic and unanticipated issues during the preliminary inquiry.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish that the pandemic or the preliminary inquiry issues caused the delay, attributing much of the delay to Crown inaction.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.