William Hubert Morris

A secured lender applied to vary a criminal restraint order or obtain relief allowing enforcement of a collateral mortgage against property subject to forfeiture proceedings following a drug conviction.

The court considered the interaction between restraint orders under the Criminal Code and forfeiture orders under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act when a forfeiture order is appealed and stayed.

The court held that the restraint order ceased once the forfeiture order was made, even though the forfeiture order was stayed pending appeal.

As an innocent third‑party secured creditor with a prior registered mortgage in default, the lender was entitled to exercise its remedies under the Mortgages Act.

The court authorized the lender to enforce its mortgage and directed that any net sale proceeds remaining after satisfaction of secured debts be paid into court pending resolution of the criminal appeal.

The applicant brought a corporate law application under multiple provisions of the Business Corporations Act, the Courts of Justice Act, and the Rules of Civil Procedure.

In a supplemental endorsement, the court addressed the timing of service of the Notice of Application following an earlier endorsement.

The court amended paragraph 2 of the prior endorsement and extended the time for service of the Notice of Application by 90 days from September 1, 2012.

The order was made in circumstances where the respondents did not appear.

The appellant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received weekly income benefits of $600 based on reported pre-accident income.

The insurer later reduced benefits, alleging the income information was false and seeking repayment of an overpayment.

At arbitration, the arbitrator found the appellant and his witnesses lied about his employment and ordered repayment.

On appeal, the Director's Delegate found the arbitrator failed to adequately explain the finding of fraud, particularly given the existence of tax documents supporting the income.

The appeal was allowed in part, and a new hearing was ordered to determine the proper amount of benefits and any overpayment.

The applicant was injured in two motor vehicle accidents and received statutory accident benefits until the insurer terminated them in January 1994.

The applicant sought ongoing weekly income benefits, medical and rehabilitation benefits, and a special award, claiming he was unable to return to his pre-accident job as a welder due to thoracic outlet syndrome and other injuries.

The arbitrator dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's ongoing difficulties were primarily related to pre-existing, work-related conditions rather than the motor vehicle accidents.

Surveillance evidence and the applicant's post-accident recreational activities demonstrated a level of functional ability inconsistent with his claims of severe disability.

The insurer's termination of benefits was deemed reasonable, and no special award was granted.

The appellants, who were minors at the time of their respective motor vehicle accidents, commenced actions for damages more than two years after the accidents but within two years of reaching the age of majority.

The central issue was whether the two-year limitation period in section 180(1) of the Highway Traffic Act excluded the operation of section 47 of the Limitations Act, which postpones the running of limitation periods for persons under legal disability.

The Supreme Court of Canada held that the provisions are not inconsistent and that section 47 applies to postpone the limitation period for minors.

The appeals of the minor plaintiffs were allowed.

However, the adult plaintiff's claim, which was commenced after the limitation period expired, was held to be incurably out of time and was dismissed.

The applicant was injured in a motor vehicle accident and received statutory accident benefits until they were terminated by the insurer.

The parties reached a settlement at mediation, but the applicant subsequently sought to invalidate the agreement, arguing the insurer failed to disclose a rehabilitation consultant's report prior to the settlement.

The arbitrator held that the report contained no information that would render the settlement unconscionable and upheld the validity of the mediation agreement.

The applicant was awarded expenses for the preliminary issue hearing.

The respondent suffered severe back injuries in a motor vehicle accident caused by the appellant.

Medical experts recommended surgery with a 70% chance of success, but the respondent refused due to a fear of surgery, demanding a 100% guarantee.

The trial judge found the refusal unreasonable and cut off damages for loss of income at the date the respondent would have recovered had he undergone surgery.

The Court of Appeal adjusted the award by factoring in the 30% chance of failure.

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the appeal, holding that the objective test of reasonableness applies unless the plaintiff has a pre-existing psychological condition rendering them incapable of making a rational choice.

The Court affirmed that damages should be assessed by discounting full compensation by the probability of the surgery's success.