Adam White

The applicant, charged with obtaining sexual services for consideration, brought an application under s. 8 of the Charter to exclude text messages and identification evidence.

The police had photographed text messages between the applicant and the complainant on the complainant's phone with her consent, and showed her a single photograph of the applicant to confirm his identity.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text messages voluntarily shared by the recipient, and that the identification evidence was reliable recognition evidence rather than a tainted identification.

The applicant mother sought to relocate with the parties' three children to Cleveland, Ohio, to live with her new spouse.

The respondent father opposed the relocation.

The court considered the children's views and preferences, which strongly favoured the move, alongside the history of the parents' relationship, allegations of family violence, and the mother's restrictive approach to the father's parenting time.

Despite concerns about the mother's willingness to foster the children's relationship with the father, the court found that refusing the relocation would pose a significant risk to the children's best interests given their strong alignment with the mother.

The relocation was permitted, with a detailed parenting plan ordered to ensure the father's ongoing involvement.

The father was also ordered to pay child support, including a significant amount for section 7 expense arrears, while the mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed without prejudice.