Alain H. Perron

Following a nine-day child protection trial in which the Society's application was dismissed and the child was returned to the mother's care, the mother sought costs of $5,000 against the Society on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied the framework from Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. K.L. and T.M. and found that the Society's conduct was patently unfair and indefensible, including: failure to disclose 400 pages of contact logs until three days before the final decision was rendered; failure to present relevant child welfare information to the court during trial; failure to increase access despite court direction and the absence of protection concerns; and failure to facilitate contact between the child and her maternal grandfather for over one and a half years.

Costs were awarded, but reduced to a nominal $500 on the basis that both Legal Aid Ontario (representing the mother) and the Society are publicly funded, and that limited public funds should remain directed toward the child's continued care rather than past legal fees.

The sentencing court addressed convictions for two counts of possessing child pornography and one count of distributing child pornography.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles, the court emphasized denunciation and deterrence while also considering proportionality, rehabilitation, and individualized factors from the pre-sentence report.

The court accepted that a custodial sentence was required and rejected a conditional sentence order as inconsistent with the gravity of the offences, the size of the CSAM collection, lack of guilty plea, and limited remorse or accountability.

The court imposed 2 years less a day of incarceration, followed by 36 months' probation, and made ancillary DNA, SOIRA, s. 161 internet-use, and forfeiture orders.

In a family law matter involving three children from a common law relationship, the court determined custody and access arrangements following separation.

The applicant father sought to make permanent the existing temporary orders providing him with primary residence of the two youngest children and week-about shared residency for the oldest child.

The respondent mother sought week-about shared residency for all three children or, alternatively, primary residence of the oldest child with access to the two youngest.

The court found both parents capable and loving, but determined that a week-about shared residency arrangement for all three children best served the children's interests, allowing maximum contact with both parents and siblings.

The court also adjusted child support obligations based on the new shared parenting arrangement and the parties' current incomes.

The applicant mother sought an order for security for costs in the amount of $30,000 against the respondent father in a motion to change custody and access arrangements.

The respondent father, self-represented, opposed the motion.

The court found that the respondent father's motion to change was contrary to all previous court orders and the recommendations of the Ontario Children's Lawyer's report.

The respondent father's conduct throughout the proceedings was troublesome, including refusal to amend pleadings despite court direction, aggressive communications with opposing counsel, refusal to approve disclosure orders, and substantial arrears in child support payments.

The court determined that the respondent father lacked the financial means to pay costs and that the case constituted a waste of time and a nuisance.

The court ordered security for costs in the reduced amount of $15,000, finding that $30,000 was excessive given the anticipated trial length of 2-3 days.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from an incident on Highway 11 near Trout Creek, Ontario: Escape Lawful Custody, Obstruct Peace Officer, Assault Peace Officer, Trespass by Night, and Possession of Marijuana under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

A Charter application alleging arbitrary detention under section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was heard as part of a blended trial.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, relying solely on the smell of unburnt marijuana without adequate corroborating evidence or proper inquiry.

The court determined the arrest was arbitrary and excluded all evidence obtained as a result of the Charter violation, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol per hundred milliliters of blood following an incident in North Bay, Ontario on December 15, 2017.

A blended trial and Charter application were held.

The defence abandoned its Charter arguments and proceeded solely on the submission that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable as required by the Criminal Code.

The court found a significant unexplained delay of 58 minutes between arrival at the detachment and the accused being turned over to the breath technician, and a lack of evidence explaining the circumstances of this delay.

The court concluded it could not determine whether the tests were taken as soon as practicable in all circumstances and therefore the statutory presumption could not apply.

The charge was dismissed.

The applicant father sought to maintain jurisdiction in the Ontario Court of Justice over custody and access matters involving his son, who had been relocated to Japan by the respondent mother following a mobility order granted in August 2017.

The court determined that while it had jurisdiction when the proceedings were commenced in 2016 (when all parties and the child were physically present in Ontario), it no longer had jurisdiction after the child's relocation to Japan.

The court found that the criteria under section 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act could no longer be satisfied, specifically regarding substantial evidence availability, real and substantial connection to Ontario, and balance of convenience.

The court stayed the proceedings.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol per hundred milliliters of blood and an open liquor charge under the Liquor Licence Act.

The accused pleaded guilty to the liquor charge and proceeded to trial on the impaired driving charge with a concurrent Charter application alleging six violations.

The court found two Charter breaches: an unlawful search of the accused's backpack at an impound yard and an arbitrary detention resulting from over-holding the accused in custody beyond the time he should have been released.

Applying the Grant analysis under section 24(2), the court excluded the breath sample evidence and acquitted the accused on the impaired driving charge.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to supply a breath sample contrary to section 254(2) of the Criminal Code following a motor vehicle stop on June 3, 2016.

The Crown alleged the accused willfully failed to provide a suitable breath sample after more than 20 attempts over three breath sequences.

The defence raised three issues: whether the Crown proved willful failure beyond a reasonable doubt, whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make the breath demand, and the consequences of two breath demands.

The court found the Crown proved each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol per hundred millilitres of blood following a traffic stop in Callander, Ontario on December 12, 2015.

The trial involved a blended trial and Charter application.

The defence raised two issues: (1) whether the Intoxilyzer samples were taken as soon as practicable, and (2) whether the officer properly utilized the approved screening device (ASD) to establish reasonable and probable grounds for arrest.

The court found that the samples were obtained as soon as practicable within a 37-minute period that included necessary processing and the accused's right to counsel.

The court also found that the officer's reliance on the ASD result was reasonable under the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision in Magnetawan, Ontario on April 25, 2016.

The Crown's evidence established the collision, the accused's impairment, and breath test results of 137 mg and 146 mg respectively.

However, the Crown conceded that the first breath sample was taken outside the two-hour statutory window required by the Criminal Code.

Without expert toxicology evidence to perform retrograde extrapolation, the court found the Crown had not proven all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood following an incident in North Bay on January 17, 2014.

The trial addressed whether breath samples were taken as soon as practicable under section 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code, and whether various Charter rights were violated.

The court found no Charter violations and concluded that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Motion to change a 2005 custody order concerning a child adopted from Vietnam.

The applicant sought to vary the order to allow relocation to British Columbia with the child.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought custody in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

The court found a material change in circumstances and, after a seven-day trial, awarded sole custody to the respondent based on the child's expressed wishes, the applicant's unilateral relocation without court approval, and the deterioration of the relationship between the child and applicant.

The court permitted the respondent to relocate with the child to Thunder Bay and granted the applicant limited access.

The accused was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired and over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood.

The trial examined whether the accused, who was found sitting in the driver's seat of a running vehicle in a parking lot behind a bar, had the requisite care and control.

The accused testified he entered the vehicle solely to charge his dead cell phone using the vehicle's aftermarket stereo, with no intention to drive.

Corroborating witnesses testified the accused had arranged alternative transportation.

The court found the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption of care and control under section 258 of the Criminal Code and that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a realistic risk of danger existed.

The accused was acquitted on both charges.