Century 21 Canada Ltd. Partnership v. Rogers Communications Inc. | 2011 CarswellBC 2348 | Punnett J.

Century 21 Canada Ltd. Partnership v. Rogers Communications Inc. | 2011 CarswellBC 2348 | Punnett J.

Evidence law is a notoriously complex area of law. Some of its reputation is attributable to the difficult concept of hearsay evidence, which is generally inadmissible unless it falls within one of several established exceptions. Another difficult concept, which the CED tackles with aplomb, is similar fact evidence. The following post clearly and succinctly explains what similar fact evidence is, why it is potentially dangerous, and the circumstances in which it can be used. It is eminently helpful to those who seek a fuller understanding of evidence law.

Fennemore v. Mercer | 2013 CarswellNfld 220 | Kendra J. Goulding J.

Moukhine v. Collins | 2012 CarswellBC 182 | Watchuk J.

There is much about this case that resembles a Family Court proceeding involving an adulterous spouse: passion has pilfered all perspective; judgment that would otherwise be insightful is clouded; bitterness hangs in the air; and, the IQs of the parties have temporarily dropped to the ambient temperature of the courtroom (otherwise, why would this family be exposing its dirty corporate laundry in such a public forum).

Royal Oak Mines Inc. v. C.A.W., Local 2304 | 1997 CarswellNat 3092 | Bird (Member)

In a trial involving self-represented litigants, my expectations are low: all I ask is that they be clothed.

McManamna v. Farley | 2007 CarswellBC 2001 | 87 Smart J.

There is a point where the courts are being misused by constant and continuing efforts to keep a proceeding open instead of accepting the determination that has been made and moving on.

Canada (Attorney General) v. Mowat | 2011 CarswellNat 4191 | LeBel and Cromwell JJ

Over the past few years, Freemen-on-the-land or “OPCA” (organized pseudolegal commercial argument) litigants have had an increasing presence in the courtroom, performing contemptible acts such as denying the authority of the court, disobeying court orders, disrupting court proceedings and in one instance, attempting to arrest the sitting judge. This post provides a concise explanation of what may merit a finding of contempt of court.