Wayne Cusack

The moving party solicitor opposed the confirmation of an Assessment Officer's report which reduced his accounts from $20,134.22 to $12,354.22.

The solicitor argued the Assessment Officer disregarded the written retainer agreement and improperly relied on parol evidence of a fee estimate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Assessment Officer made no errors of law, properly considered the retainer agreement, and correctly held the solicitor to the requirement of keeping clients reasonably informed about fees relative to prior estimates.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after the complainant's neck was slashed with a knife at a party.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony from an intoxicated witness and DNA evidence linking the accused to the knife handle and the complainant to the blade.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as improbable and found the DNA evidence compelling corroboration of the eyewitness account.

The court also ruled that the expert DNA evidence was admissible despite the technologists who performed the tests not being called to testify.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a claim alleging damages arising from personal service of motion materials at the plaintiff’s residence.

The plaintiff alleged harassment, emotional distress, and the inclusion of a purported “death threat letter.” The court found the allegations to be unsupported, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process.

Assuming without deciding that a tort of harassment could exist, the court held that a single lawful attendance to serve legal documents could not constitute outrageous conduct or establish the required elements of the tort.

Summary judgment was granted and the action against the defendant was dismissed.

The applicants and respondents are neighbours involved in a dispute over a right of way owned by the respondents but used by the applicants to access their properties.

The applicants sought the removal of decorative rocks and fern trees placed on the right of way by the respondents, arguing they impeded access.

The court found that the rocks substantially interfered with the applicants' ability to exit their driveway and ordered their removal.

However, the court found the trees did not impede reasonable access and allowed them to remain.

The court also declared that the respondents are responsible for maintaining and clearing snow from the right of way at their own cost, but the applicants may do so if the respondents fail to fulfill this duty.