Adriana Doyle

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike the defendants' jury notice due to the suspension of civil jury trials in Ottawa caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendants brought a cross-motion to compel the injured plaintiff to attend an independent medical examination (IME) without the presence of a support person.

The court granted both motions, finding that the pandemic-related delay justified striking the jury notice to ensure timely access to justice, and that the defendants were entitled to an IME without third-party interference absent medical evidence requiring a support person.

The father moved for a stay pending appeal of an order requiring him to provide a notarized copy of his severely autistic child's passport and OHIP card to the mother.

The mother, a Ghanaian diplomat, required the documents to obtain a travel visa to return to Canada and resume equal parenting time.

The court admitted fresh evidence from an immigration lawyer but ultimately dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no irreparable harm to the father and that the balance of convenience and the child's best interests favoured the mother returning to Canada.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of refusing to comply with a roadside screening device demand.

The trial judge had found that the officer's incorrect advice—that a refusal to blow carries the same penalty as a failure—tainted the otherwise valid demand.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that while the initial information was incomplete, the officer subsequently clarified that the respondent would be charged if he refused.

The court concluded the demand was unequivocal and the respondent understood the consequences, entering a conviction.

The applicant, an Indigenous man charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving a seven-year-old child, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He sought to overturn a detention order made at his show cause hearing.

The court found that the show cause judge did not err in law or make a clearly inappropriate decision in detaining the applicant on the primary and secondary grounds, given his outstanding charges, history of non-compliance, and concerns regarding the proposed surety.

The application was dismissed and the detention order was upheld.

Historical domestic violence prosecution arising from allegations by two former intimate partners, including indecent assault, sexual assault, assault, and pointing a firearm.

The court applied the W.(D.) credibility framework and carefully distinguished credibility from reliability in assessing evidence concerning events said to have occurred decades earlier.

It held that delayed disclosure did not undermine the complainants’ credibility in relation to the sexual offences and accepted the core evidence on five counts despite memory gaps attributable to the passage of time.

The accused was convicted on counts of indecent assault, assault, pointing a firearm, sexual assault, and assault, but acquitted on one assault count because the evidence concerning the toilet incident was not sufficiently reliable.

The moving party, Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company, brought a motion for leave to appeal a July 2, 2020 order.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal.

The court directed that the questions on appeal would be those set out in the moving party's factum, and fixed costs of the motion at $5,000 to the successful party on the appeal.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal to the Divisional Court.

The court dismissed the motion and awarded costs of $2,500 to the plaintiff.

The applicant law firm brought a motion for leave to appeal in a matter under the Solicitors Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the amount of $1,500.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an alleged historical incident involving a child complainant.

The court reviewed the complainant’s testimony, a prior video statement admitted under s. 715.1 of the Criminal Code, the evidence of the first disclosure witness, and the accused’s denial under the W.(D.) framework.

While the court rejected the defence evidence on several points, it found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence affecting reliability and credibility on material matters.

Applying the criminal standard of proof and cautioning against myths about delayed disclosure, the court held the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and entered acquittals.

The moving party sought an extension of time to file a motion for leave to appeal a costs order arising from a family law motion regarding school choice.

The court applied the Enbridge test and found that the moving party failed to demonstrate a bona fide intention to appeal within the prescribed time, did not adequately explain the delay, and that the proposed appeal lacked merit.

The court also noted significant prejudice to the responding party.

The motion for an extension of time was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding party.

The child, who was the subject of a high-conflict custody and child protection dispute, ran away and sought assistance from a legal clinic.

The father obtained an urgent motion order restraining the legal clinic and its lawyer from representing or contacting the child.

The legal clinic and the child appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the motion judge erred by conflating a child's right to standing in a proceeding with their fundamental right to seek independent legal advice.

The court held that children are entitled to seek legal advice without permission from their parents or the court.

The court issued a trial management endorsement to address the resumption of a criminal trial that was adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused is charged with dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

The court ordered that the balance of the Crown's non-expert witnesses will testify via Zoom, while expert witnesses will testify in person at a later date.

The endorsement sets out detailed procedures for document sharing, witness management, and virtual courtroom etiquette.

The applicant mother sought to suspend or supervise the respondent father's access to their special needs child, Patrick, alleging non-compliance with medical protocols and COVID-19 procedures.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no material change in circumstances since a recent trial decision that had thoroughly addressed similar issues and established a gradual access regime.

The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the previous order and improving parental communication.

The Applicant mother sought costs following a successful motion where the court ordered the children to attend her proposed school.

The Respondent father opposed, arguing his school proposal was reasonable and the mother's claimed costs were excessive for a single-issue motion.

The court awarded the mother $3,000 in costs, finding her to be the successful party and her offer to settle reasonable, while noting the father's failure to respond to a draft order and assessing the proportionality of the amount claimed.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking the return of the children to Ottawa and unsupervised access.

The respondent mother opposed, requesting the children remain with her in Niagara and that the father's access be supervised due to his mental health issues.

The court ordered the mother to return the children to the matrimonial home in Ottawa, granted her exclusive possession, and allowed the father unsupervised access three times a week.

The mother was permitted to travel with the children to Niagara one week per month, during which the father could exercise access in Niagara.

The court found no compelling reasons for relocation and no evidence warranting supervised access.

The court addressed the settling of a final order following a trial, specifically concerning an omission in the prior decision regarding the children's surnames.

The applicant mother sought to include a previously agreed-upon consent for hyphenated surnames, which the respondent father opposed, arguing it was not in the original decision and required a formal motion under Rule 25(19)(b).

The court found it was not functus officio as the final order had not been issued, and therefore retained jurisdiction to amend its decision.

It determined that Rule 25(19)(b) was not applicable as no formal order existed yet.

The court decided to allow both parties to provide further submissions on the substantive issue of the surname change before finalizing the order.

This urgent motion addressed a dispute between separated parents with joint custody regarding the school placement for their two children, Sophia (11) and Osker (almost 9), for the upcoming academic year.

Neither parent resided within the catchment area of the children's current school.

The mother proposed Sophia attend Emily Carr Middle School and Osker attend Good Shepherd Catholic School, while the father proposed both children attend Chapel Hill Catholic School.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test under the Children's Law Reform Act, sided with the mother's proposal, emphasizing Sophia's anxiety and need for stability, the minimization of parental conflict through neutral pick-up/drop-off locations, and the mother's proactive role in addressing the children's special needs.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion to suspend the respondent mother's access to their 7-year-old son, C.A.B., citing concerns about her compliance with COVID-19 directives and lack of communication regarding safety measures.

The court, emphasizing the child's best interests and the importance of routine, declined to suspend access.

Instead, it ordered that the existing access schedule continue, subject to new conditions and restrictions related to COVID-19 protocols, including immediate notification of potential exposure, detailed communication via Family Wizard after visits, the father primarily providing transportation, and avoiding public transportation as much as possible.

Costs were reserved.

The applicant mother sought the immediate return of children under a 2-2-3 parenting schedule or, alternatively, a week on/week off schedule, and child support.

The respondent father sought temporary custody and supervised visits for the mother, alleging non-compliance with COVID-19 directives and past parenting issues.

The court found it in the children's best interests to maintain shared parenting and ordered a week on/week off schedule due to the pandemic, limiting parent contact and travel.

The court also ordered the father to pay interim child support of $1000 per month, pending a full motion.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and restricted contact for the respondent father, citing her vulnerable health status during the COVID-19 pandemic and the father's alleged non-compliance with health protocols.

The court granted the mother interim exclusive possession of the home and ordered the father's contact with the children to be via electronic means, finding that the father had not adequately addressed the increased health risks to the family.

The court declined to address financial aspects due to insufficient information.