3 total
Application for judicial review of tribunal's interim adjournment order dismissed as premature and moot.
The applicant sought judicial review of an interim decision by the Licence Appeal Tribunal granting a three-month adjournment to the respondent insurer.
The Divisional Court issued a notice under Rule 2.1.01 to consider dismissing the proceeding.
The court found that the application was premature, as courts rarely intervene in ongoing administrative proceedings absent exceptional circumstances, and moot, as the adjourned hearing date had already arrived.
The application for judicial review was dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process, without prejudice to the applicant's right to raise procedural issues in a future review of the final decision.
The court dismissed the motion for a directed verdict on a first-degree murder charge.
The accused, Andrew Douglas, brought an application for a directed verdict of acquittal on a first-degree murder charge at the close of the Crown's case.
The application was opposed by the Crown.
The court dismissed the application, finding that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence for a properly instructed jury to reasonably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt on the first-degree murder charge, particularly regarding planning and deliberation.
The case was allowed to proceed to the jury on the first-degree murder charge.
The court excluded the accused's violent criminal record from cross-examination to prevent impermissible propensity reasoning.
This ruling addresses a Corbett application in a first-degree murder trial.
The accused sought to limit the admissibility of his criminal record for cross-examination on credibility.
The Crown argued for the full record, contending the defence would attack the deceased's character.
The court balanced the probative value of the convictions against the prejudicial effect of propensity reasoning, particularly for violent and similar offences.
The judge ruled that only convictions for obstruction of a Peace Officer and theft (read down from robbery) would be admissible, finding that the defence's argument regarding the deceased's possession of a firearm was a direct response to the indictment, not an attack on character, thus not creating an imbalance requiring the full record.
