Winfield Edward Corcoran

The appellant, convicted of sexual interference and sexual assault against his niece, appealed both convictions and the global 9-year sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's restrictions on cross-examination regarding delay in reporting or avoidant behaviour, nor in the refusal to order production of psychiatric records, and no Kienapple error as distinct delicts were found.

The Court also dismissed the sentence appeal, upholding the proportionality and fitness of the sentence, distinguishing it from a lower comparable sentence based on the severity and duration of the abuse.

This is a costs endorsement following motions regarding refusals on cross-examinations in a proposed class action.

The plaintiff's motion for refusals was largely dismissed, while the Solart defendants' cross-motion regarding the plaintiff's refusals was allowed.

The court considered various factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Section 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, emphasizing that substantial indemnity costs are reserved for "reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct." While the plaintiff's counsel's conduct was deemed unreasonable, it did not generally meet this high threshold, except in the case of Martin Yockell, where class counsel's conduct during cross-examination was found to be reprehensible, warranting substantial indemnity costs.

The court also addressed the recoverability of costs for pro bono counsel and costs thrown away.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused by various defendants during cross-examinations on affidavits filed for a certification motion.

The Solart defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the plaintiff to answer questions he refused during his cross-examination.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding the questions posed to the defendants were irrelevant, unanswerable, or sought legal opinions.

The court granted the defendants' cross-motion, ordering the plaintiff to re-attend and answer questions related to the common issues, as they were relevant to testing the certification requirements.