defendants. The action was undefended.
Plaintiff, a 48-year-old woman, was bitten by
an 80-pound Alaskan shepherd owned by
defendants. She was pinned to the ground by
the dog for about five minutes until one of
the defendants pulled the dog off her. She
suffered two tooth punctures in her hip. She
went to the hospital and got rabies shots
along with medication for pain and shock.
Plaintiff took sleeping pills for a while to help
her sleep. Plaintiff sought damages of
$15,000 to $20,000.
HELD: Action allowed. Plaintiff’s physical
injuries were not serious. Her puncture
wounds were not large and had healed. The
scars were not noticeable given their location. Her resulting emotional trauma was
more serious than the physical trauma. She
had nightmares, problems sleeping and a
fear of dogs. Plaintiff was awarded $8,500
for general damages, $3,215 for costs and
disbursements, loss of pay of $143 and her
OHIP subrogated claim of $319.
Chatterton v. Cowan, [2010] O.J. No.
3395, Ont. S.C.J., Lauwers J., Aug. 10/10.
Digest No. 3018-013 (Approx. 5 pp.)
murder. The victim was shot to death in a
crack house where he lived with accused and
accused’s girlfriend. The victim was the
couple’s drug supplier. The shooting was purportedly retribution for the victim’s rudeness
to accused’s friends, and because he made
accused’s girlfriend perform oral sex in
exchange for a place to live. After the shooting, accused and the girlfriend burned the
victim’s clothing and boots at a remote cabin.
At trial, the girlfriend testified that she saw
accused shoot the victim in the face from the
vantage point of a vehicle parked outside of
the house. A driver gave a ride to accused and
his girlfriend five days after the shooting and
testified as to inculpatory statements made
by accused. Accused threatened violence and
took over the driving, eventually taking the
vehicle when the driver took refuge at a store.
A jury convicted accused. Accused submitted
on appeal that the trial judge erred in admitting the carjacking evidence as evidence of
post-offence conduct relevant to character
that was unrelated to the offence and was
adduced without an adequate limiting charge
to the jury. He further submitted that the
trial judge erred in failing to give a proper
Vetrovec instruction to the jury regarding the
girlfriend’s evidence.
HELD: Appeal dismissed. There was no
error in respect of the carjacking evidence, as
it was unlikely that the jury would infer a
propensity to murder based solely on the fact
of the carjacking, or on exaggerated statements made by accused to the driver. The
effect on character was relative, as the trial
was replete with witnesses involved in the
drug trade, including the victim himself. The
warning given to the jury regarding the use of
bad character evidence was sufficient. There
was no error in respect of the Vetrovec warning to the jury regarding the girlfriend’s evidence. The jury was aware that the girlfriend’s evidence was subject to special
scrutiny given the defence theory that she
may have killed the victim, and the judge’s
instruction to view her evidence with care
due to her conduct. The reasonableness of
the verdict was not impugned.
R. v. Reierson, [2010] B.C.J. No.
1619, B.C.C.A, per Newbury J.A.
(Groberman and Hinkson JJ.A. concur-
ring), Aug. 18/10. Digest No. 3018-015
(Approx. 13 pp.)
sible after the separation agreement was
signed. There was no duress in the terms of
the agreement. The husband entered into
the agreement voluntarily. There was no
non-disclosure. The parties were well aware
of their assets and liabilities. Being inequitable did not make the agreement unconscionable. The separation agreement was
clearly made in lieu of equalization. The
agreement was enforceable and specific performance thereof was ordered. The husband
was required to pay for damages he caused
to the wife’s belongings.
Nisbett v. Nisbett, [2010] O.J. No.
3391, Ont. S.C.J., Tucker J., Aug. 10/10.
Digest No. 3018-016 (Approx. 10 pp.)
INSURANCE
(MOTOR VEHICLE)
ACCIDENT BENEFITS – Decision by
applicant Commission about the eligibility
of respondent for accident benefits could
only be appealed to the court.
Application for a determination of
whether or not there was a choice for claimants between review and appeal from a decision by the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Applicant Commission had decided
that respondent C was not entitled to compensation. C was driving with a propane tank
Classifieds
ESTATES
PROCEDURE – Court refused to issue
an order permitting the estate trustee
from dispensing with a case conference
prior to proceeding with a motion for dir-
ections. The case conference could encom-
pass the motion for directions.
Application for an order dispensing with a
case conference prior to proceeding with
applicant’s motion for directions. Applicant
was the long time common law spouse of JH,
who died without a will. Respondent was the
estate of the deceased. Applicant was also
trustee of the estate, having been granted a
certificate of appointment of estate trustee
without a will. In her personal capacity, she
had applied for an order seeking a declaration of a resulting or constructive trust that
the deceased’s solely owned bank accounts
and investments were held for her benefit.
The deceased died leaving several relatives
who would be beneficiaries of the estate,
none of whom were parties or had been given
notice of the motion.
HELD: Application dismissed. There
would appear to be a significant issue of a
potential conflict of interest on the part of
applicant in her personal capacity and in
respect of her capacity as trustee of her common law husband’s estate. It was not in the
interests of justice to dispense with the case
conference when affected parties may not
have been given notice of the proceedings.
The scope of the case conference could
encompass the matter of directions. Applicant was ordered to serve the application and
related documents along with a copy of this
endorsement on the surviving relatives of the
deceased. This would allow them to move to
participate in the proceedings, including the
case conference, if they deemed it appropriate to do so.
Hedley v. Hayes Estate, [2010] O.J. No.
3462, Ont. S.C.J., Annis J., Aug. 13/10.
Digest No. 3018-014 (Approx. 2 pp.)
MISSING HEIRS
Cogan & Assoc. International
probate research, locators of miss-
ing heirs. Tel: 519-770-0500, Fax:
519-770-0059. www.heirtrace.com
BOUTIQUE INSURANCE
DEFENCE LITIGATION FIRM
in downtown Toronto, with core
practice areas in construction law
and health law, seeking associate
lawyer with 1– 5 years’ experience.
Please send cover letter and CV elec-
tronically to jpaparizos@gibbslaw.ca
OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE
FOR FAMILY LAW LAWYER
in Yonge/Sheppard area. Suc-
cessful applicant will be offered an
unlimited number of referrals. You
will have a full client load within
1– 2 months. Lawyers with at least
2 years experience are preferred.
If interested, please send your
e-mail to amglawinfo@rogers.com
FAMILY LAW
PRIME OFFICE SPACE IN
CONSEILLER(ÈRE) JURIDIQUE
TORONTO
Research In Motion (RIM)
is the leading designer, manufac-
turer, and marketer of the award
winning BlackBerry® smartphone.
RIM is currently recruiting for the
following two positions. For full
job descriptions and to apply, visit
www.rim.com/careers Corporate
Law Clerk (Waterloo) #1001466:
Law clerk experience to assist you
with: providing support to lawyers
with incorporations, amendments,
amalgamations, continuances,
and other transactions; organiz-
ing Board and committee meet-
ings and preparing agendas;
drafting resolutions, minutes, and
other relevant documentation; and
maintaining corporate books and
records, minute books, and cor-
porate databases. Corporate Law
Clerk (Waterloo or Mississauga)
#1001465: Three or more years
of law clerk experience to assist
you with: working with lawyers and
contract negotiators in IT Procure-
ment, Professional Services, and
Customer Support Operations
groups; reviewing and drafting con-
tracts and amendments, obtaining
appropriate RIM approvals, and
managing files.
SEPARATION AGREEMENTS –
Court upheld a separation agreement
entered into by the parties before sep-
aration to enable the husband to move
to Florida.
Application by the wife to enforce a separation agreement. The parties married in
2001 and separated in June 2008. They had
entered into a separation agreement in May
2008. The wife sought to enforce provisions
of the separation agreement that would give
her ownership of the matrimonial home and
a cottage owned by the parties. The husband
sought to have the separation agreement set
aside on the basis of inadequate financial
disclosure, inadequate consideration, uncon-scionability, and the failure of the agreement
to provide for an equalization of family property. During the marriage, the parties jointly
ran a business buying homes, renovating
them and reselling them.
HELD: Application allowed. The separation agreement was simply drawn and contained internal inconsistencies. The impetus
for the quickness of the agreement was the
husband’s desire to move. The husband
planned to move to Florida as soon as pos-
REAL ESTATE LAWYERS
NEEDED IN GRAVENHURST
(MUSKOKA)
2,000 sq’ choice office space,
minutes from Taboo Golf/CONDO
resort. .Mature subdivision/ indus-
trial area, Property includes, park-
ing kitchenette, air conditioning,
freshly decorated. Great growth lo-
cation to develop practise. Contact
Sol Mednick 416-443-0595. Rent:
$7.00 sq’ plus utilities.
LAWYER REQUIRED
TarBush Giller & Associates Pro-
fessional Corporation, a general
practice law office, in Listowel, On-
tario, is looking for lawyer with 2 —
5 years experience, specializing in
corporate law. Please fax resume
to attention of Beverley A. Dadson
519-291-5231 or email to
bdadson@targillaw.com
LITIGATION/FAMILY LAWYER
A continually growing North York
firm with a solid client base has
an immediate opening for a litiga-
tion/family lawyer. The successful
candidate must have a sound work
ethic, the ability and willingness to
work within a team environment,
be a self starter highly dedicated
to obtaining excellence in results
and be proficient in computer skills.
Benefits package provided. If inter-
ested please respond in writing to
E. Zeppieri at 851 Wilson Avenue,
North York, Ontario M3K 1E6 or
fax to (416) 631-6170 or e-mail to
esther@zeppieri.com
RE: ESTATE OF CAROL HOCK,
Deceased
Anyone having knowledge of a
Will, heirs or assets of the late
Carol Hock, of the City of Toronto,
in the Province of Ontario, who
died on or about June 26, 2010, is
requested to contact John P. Allen,
Allen & Allen, Barristers & Solici-
tors, 15 Toronto Street, Suite 200,
Toronto, M5C 2E3, Tel. 416-865-0303
Fax. 416-865-1241.
To place your
EVIDENCE
(CRIMINAL)
CLASSIFIED AD
CHARACTER EVIDENCE – Trial
judge did not err in his consideration of a
post-offence carjacking and evidence pro-
vided by accused’s girlfriend.
Appeal from conviction for second degree
BOUTIQUE COMMERCIAL REAL
ESTATE LAW FIRM
seeks experienced litigator. Mortgage
enforcement experience would be an
asset. Contact M. Banach by phone
— 416-223-9191 (Ext. 220) or email
at mbanach@mwb.ca
Please Call
Valery Pfister-Watt
905-415-5801 or
1-800-668-6481 ex. 801
valery.pfister-watt@lexisnexis.ca
