Alison Reed

The defendant, a professional transport truck driver, was charged with careless driving after colliding with a crash truck parked in a live lane to protect a construction crew.

The defendant argued the crash truck was difficult to see and he took reasonable evasive action.

The court found the defendant was travelling above the speed limit in a construction zone and failed to exercise due care and attention when he observed a vehicle ahead.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant, Melanie Precious, was charged with failing to yield from a driveway contrary to s.139(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution proved the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the defendant successfully demonstrated a due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities, arguing that she took reasonable care by looking in each direction and allowing a preceding vehicle to pass, and that the collision was likely due to the other vehicle's unilluminated headlights in dense fog.

The court dismissed the charge, finding the defendant was without fault.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order granting custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The father opposed the motion, arguing he should be allowed to defend a pending criminal trial first and that there were genuine issues of credibility requiring a trial.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the father failed to provide sufficient evidence to counter the Society's case.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection due to exposure to parental conflict, and ordered custody to the mother with supervised access for the father.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown Wardship for two children, A.B-F. (11) and E.B-H. (6), who had been in foster care for 24 months.

The mother, J.B., sought their return.

The court reviewed the children's special needs, the mother's parenting history (including losing four older children), her struggles with anxiety and anger, and her inability to consistently provide a stable and predictable environment.

The court found that the mother had not made sufficient sustainable changes to meet the children's demanding special needs.

Considering the children's best interests, particularly A.B-F.'s expressed wish not to return home and the need for permanency, the court granted Crown Wardship for adoption.

The court also ordered continued access between the siblings and limited access between the children and their mother and extended family, acknowledging the meaningfulness of these relationships while prioritizing the children's stability and future opportunities for adoption.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended five children due to concerns including alleged sexual abuse, drug involvement, and unexplained injuries to one child.

While four children were returned to the mother's care under supervision, the temporary care and custody of one child, N., remained at issue.

The mother moved for N.'s return, which the father opposed due to concerns about supervision, a past grow-op, and the mother's candour.

The Society took no position on N.'s placement.

The court, applying section 51(3) of the CFSA, found no reasonable grounds to believe N. would suffer harm that could not be adequately protected by a supervision order, and ordered N.'s return to the mother and her partner under specific conditions.