Violence

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18 | ARCTIC OBITER Yellowknife Dene Band, is certified as a heavy equipment operator with a lengthy work history. His employer provided a positive reference. The accused supports his 4 children financially. The accused has complied with all conditions of his bail order and has been working full-time and living outside of Yellowknife. The accused is sentenced to 5 years in jail, and ancillary orders: DNA sample, registration with the Sexual Offender Information Registry, and a 10 year firearms prohibition order. TERRITORIAL COURT R. v. Cheryl Williams 2011 NWTTC 05 (CanLII) | March 25, 2011 Presiding: Judge R.D. Gorin For the Crown: A. Godfrey For the Defendant: A. Parr The accused was charged with driving while disqualified (s. 259(4) of the Criminal Code.) The accused was found not guilty because the French version of the provisions refer to a driving prohibition where a jail term had been sentenced for the same offence. The written decision is a thorough analysis of bilingual legislative drafting. Harrison v. Omilgoituk 2011 NWTTC 09 (CanLII) | March 23, 2011 Presiding: Judge B.E. Schmaltz For the Applicant: C. Seddon For the Respondent: D. Large, QC Application pursuant to the Children’s Law Act for imputation of income for the Respondent, child support and retroactive child support based on imputed income. There are three children of the relationship. The parties separated in November 2008 and the Respondent has paid no child support. The Respondent is a full-time student seeking his high school diploma. He did not provide the Court with copies of his income tax returns. The Court found that the Respondent is deliberately unemployed and imputed an annual income of $33,280. Arrears were set at $6,914.00. The Respondent was ordered to pay $668.00 per month for child support, and arrears of $193.00 per month, and to provide a copy of his filed 2011 Income Tax Return to the Applicant by June 30, 2012, and to provide copies of subsequent years’ income tax returns to the Applicant by June 30 th of every year. CASES CITED Tybring v. Tybring, 2003 NWTSC 67 Vornbrock v. Jaeb, 2008 NWTSC 95 Edgi v. Grandjambe, 2004 NWTSC 11 D.B.S. v. S.R.G; L.J.W. v. T.A.R.; Henry v. Henry; Hiemstra v. Hiemstra, [2006] 2 S.C.R. 231 STATUTES CITED Children’s Law Act Child Support Guidelines, R-138-98 Good food, great company. On Tuesday, June 14, 2011, celebrate the warmth of the season with old friends and new colleagues during the spring sitting of the NWT Court of Appeal. Watch your inbox for your invitation. Court of Appeal Barbeque
MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 19 S.C.C. UPDATE HERE IS A SUMMARY OF ALL APPEALS AND ALL LEAVES TO APPEAL (ONES GRANTED – SO YOU KNOW WHAT AREAS OF LAW THE S.C.C. WILL SOON BE DEALING WITH IN CASE ANY MAY BE AN AREA OF LAW YOU’RE LITIGATING/ADVISING/MANAGING). FOR LEAVES, I’VE SPECIFICALLY ADDED IN BOTH THE DATE THE S.C.C. GRANTED LEAVE AND THE DATE OF THE C.A. JUDGMENT BELOW, IN CASE YOU WANT TO TRACK AND CHECK OUT THE C.A. JUDGMENT. APPEALS ARBITRATION: CLASS ACTIONS; STAY OF PROCEEDINGS Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc. (B.C.C.A., March 13, 2009) (33154) 2011 SCC 15 (CanLII) | March 18, 2011 The S.C.C. took a generalized view that: the choice to restrict or not to restrict arbitration clauses in consumer contracts is a matter for the legislature absent legislative intervention, the courts will generally give effect to the terms of a commercial contract freely entered into, including an arbitration clause. Most specifically, the S.C.C. held that s. 172 claims and certification proceedings may be pursued, but other claims are obliged to go to arbitration. (s. 172, of the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act: "a person other than a supplier, whether or not the person bringing the action has a special interest or any interest under this Act or is affected by a consumer transaction that gives rise to the action, may bring an action in Supreme Court". CRIMINAL LAW: HOMICIDE JURY QUESTIONS R. v. Miljevic (Alta. C.A., Dec. 17, 2010) (33714) 2011 SCC 08 (CanLII) | February 16, 2011 The trial judge was upheld by the S.C.C. in the following circumstances: the jury had asked the trial judge to explain the difference between manslaughter and second degree murder, to provide examples, and to provide a specific definition of manslaughter the judge responded to the questions but did not provide examples or a definition of manslaughter the judge declined to give the jury examples for fear that they would not make the difference between murder and manslaughter any clearer he explained to the jury that each case is driven by its own facts, and the facts of one case or one example might not truly help them he also told them there is no specific definition of manslaughter in the Criminal Code, but he could help them by saying that the killing in this case was either murder or manslaughter and that if the appellant was not proved to have had the mental state required for murder, then the killing is manslaughter. CRIMINAL LAW: SEXUAL ASSAULT R. v. J.A.A. (Ont. C.A., July 9, 2010) (33782) 2011 SCC 17 (CanLII) | April 8, 2011 The advance notice by the SCC for this appeal (issued April 5, 2011) stated: "Publication ban in case". The judgment that just came down does not so state. Given the nature of the case, and to be completely safe, no summary on this particular case this morning. The generalized issues in this appeal deal with post-offence demeanour, whether police officers can give lay evidence as to wounds being bite wounds or whether that evidence has to be adduced by an expert (such as a forensic dentist). The hyperlink for the case is immediately below. FAMILY LAW: COMMON LAW SPOUSES Kerr v. Baranow (B.C.C.A.) (33157) Vanasse v. Seguin (Ont. C.A.) (33358) 2011 SCC 10 (CanLII) | February 18, 2011 The S.C.C. held the following: the "common intention" approach to resulting trust has no further role to play in the resolution of property claims by domestic partners on the breakdown of their relationship where both parties have worked together for the common good, with each making extensive, but different, contributions to the welfare of the other and, as a result, have accumulated assets, the money remedy for unjust enrichment should reflect that reality; the remedy in these circumstances “should not be based on a minute totting up of the give and take of daily domestic life, but rather should treat the claimant as a co-venturer, not as the hired
Page 1 and 2: ARCTIC OBITER MARCH/APRIL 2011 V OL
Page 3 and 4: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 3 PRESIDENT’S
Page 5 and 6: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 5 THE DIRECTOR
Page 7 and 8: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 7 MEMBERSHIP In
Page 9 and 10: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 9 MEMBERSHIP NOT
Page 11 and 12: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 11 CANLII NEWS N
Page 13 and 14: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 13 The same can
Page 15 and 16: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 15 It’s an uns
Page 17: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 17 NWT DECISION
Page 21 and 22: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 21 road transpor
Page 23 and 24: MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 23 RESOURCES The

Violence

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?