Vivek David

The Crown sought a ruling on the voluntariness and admissibility of the accused's videotaped statement to Detective Parsons.

The defence argued the statement was involuntary due to improper leading questions and the accused's intoxication, which allegedly overbore his will and compromised his operating mind.

The court found that the police questioning was proper, the accused was the first to identify the victim as a pedestrian, and there was no evidence of oppressive circumstances or that the accused lacked an operating mind despite alcohol consumption.

The statement was deemed voluntary and admissible.

The plaintiff leased a seven-year-old used vehicle from the defendant and subsequently experienced numerous mechanical issues.

The plaintiff brought an action for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, alleging the defendant tampered with the odometer and failed to disclose the vehicle's true condition.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action, finding no credible evidence of odometer tampering or misrepresentation.

The court held that the plaintiff leased the vehicle 'as is', declined to purchase an extended service plan, and failed to prove that the mechanical issues were present at the time of the lease or caused a subsequent collision.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his negligence claim against a solicitor.

The appellant had retained the respondent solicitor to assume carriage of three actions.

The appellant alleged that the respondent's errors caused two actions to be dismissed and prevented execution of a judgment in one action, and that a third action was not prosecuted diligently, resulting in a judgment that could not be executed due to the defendant's bankruptcy.

The motion judge dismissed the claim on summary judgment, finding insufficient evidence of negligence and no proven loss.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, finding that the appellant failed to meet the onus on summary judgment to put his best foot forward and demonstrate a genuine issue for trial, particularly regarding causation and quantifiable loss.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's solicitor negligence action on summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs of approximately $47,000.

The defendant argued that costs should be based on the actual $350 hourly rate paid by LawPRO, suggesting this was equivalent to a partial indemnity rate for senior counsel.

The court rejected this approach, noting that awarding actual costs would improperly eliminate the distinction between partial and substantial indemnity scales.

Costs were fixed at $35,000 on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff, Garfield Anthony Hibbert, sued his former lawyer, Carlin McGoogan, for negligence in handling three separate legal matters.

McGoogan brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action, arguing that Hibbert failed to prove negligence or damages.

The court granted McGoogan's motion, finding no genuine issue for trial as Hibbert provided insufficient evidence to support his claims of negligence or resulting loss in any of the three matters.