Vanessa May Marie Glasser

The accused applied for a Fisher (Peterman) order seeking increased public funding to retain specific out‑of‑town counsel at rates substantially higher than the Legal Aid tariff.

Both accused already held Legal Aid certificates with travel authorization for counsel.

The court held that the right to counsel of choice does not impose a positive obligation on the state to fund that counsel at enhanced rates.

The applicants had not exhausted available competent counsel in nearby jurisdictions and the circumstances did not meet the extraordinary threshold required for such relief.

The application was dismissed.

The appellant appealed an order striking his statement of claim without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the motion judge that the statement of claim was deficient as it failed to plead facts supporting the legal claims.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

The applicant, who has strabismus, was denied the opportunity to continue in the application process for a police constable position because he failed to meet the stereo acuity vision standard.

He alleged discrimination on the basis of disability.

The Tribunal found that the standard was prima facie discriminatory and that the respondents failed to establish it as a bona fide occupational requirement.

The evidence did not demonstrate that the standard was reasonably necessary to ensure the safe performance of police driving duties.

The Tribunal awarded the applicant $8,000 for injury to dignity, ordered the issuance of a Certificate of Results, and directed the respondents to cease relying on the standard.