Alison R. MacDonald

This decision addresses the sentencing of Kaitlyn Braun, who committed multiple offences involving deception of doulas by falsely claiming pregnancy and sexual assault, resulting in emotional and financial harm to victims.

After an initial conditional sentence order (CSO) was breached by new offences, the court considered a joint submission to terminate the CSO and impose a consecutive global three-year jail sentence.

The court carefully applied the public interest test for joint submissions, balancing the offender’s diagnosed mental health issues, the gravity and nature of the offences, and the impact on victims.

The decision highlights the court’s discretion in handling breaches of CSOs and the importance of structured treatment programs like Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) in sentencing.

The Children's Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that child A.T. was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and an order of Crown wardship with no access to the child by the respondent parents.

The respondent mother B.H. opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care, alternatively placement with the paternal grandmother under a supervision order or deemed custody order.

The respondent father K.T. was noted in default.

The court found the child was in need of protection based on the mother's unresolved drug use, mental health issues, harmful relationship with the father, housing instability, and inability to work cooperatively with the Society.

The court granted summary judgment, making the child a Crown ward with no access, finding adoption by the family that had adopted the child's two siblings was in the child's best interests.

The applicant sought a constructive trust over the matrimonial home located on a First Nation's reserve, claiming unjust enrichment due to his financial and "sweat equity" contributions during the marriage and cohabitation.

The respondent argued that the property was hers due to her Indigenous status and that she bore the primary financial and emotional support for the children after separation.

The court found insufficient evidence of the applicant's quantifiable contributions and determined that the respondent had not been unjustly enriched, particularly considering her sole responsibility for the property's financing and the children's support post-separation.

The applicant's action was dismissed.

Applications by both parents for leave to bring status review applications with respect to Crown ward children.

The mother sought placement of the children under a supervision order; the father sought access.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that neither parent had demonstrated a prima facie case for review.

The mother's application was particularly problematic given her deliberate violation of a no-access order through surreptitious contact and her demonstrated indifference to the children's best interests.

The father's application was undermined by outstanding criminal charges and the risk of further incarceration.

The court also issued a restraining order prohibiting the mother from contacting the children, given her relentless pursuit of contact in defiance of court orders.