Anne E. London-Weinstein

The accused, charged with second-degree murder and attempted murder, re-elected trial by judge alone.

The sole issue was whether the accused was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) by virtue of a mental illness under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

Expert psychiatric evidence established that the accused suffered from psychosis due to schizophrenia, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the moral wrongfulness of his actions, despite knowing the physical nature and quality of the acts.

The court accepted the defence's burden and found the accused NCR.

The applicant sought interim child support and imputation of income to the respondent, who claimed inability to work due to physical limitations.

The court found the respondent intentionally unemployed but did not accept his doctor's opinion as expert evidence for complete inability to work.

Income was imputed at minimum wage for 30 hours/week, resulting in a lower child support amount than sought by the applicant.

Issues of retroactive support and life insurance were deferred to trial.

Costs were divided due to mixed success.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action with prejudice due to the plaintiff's repeated failures to participate in litigation.

The plaintiff failed to attend examinations for discovery, did not file an affidavit of documents, and failed to comply with a court order requiring them to appoint new counsel or file a notice of intention to act in person.

The court found the plaintiff's conduct demonstrated an intention to abandon the action and granted the dismissal under Rules 3.04(4)(b)&(c) and 34.15(1)(b) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, with costs to be determined.

This ruling addresses an application by the Crown to remove defence counsel due to an apparent conflict of interest.

Defence counsel represented the accused in a murder trial while also representing the mother of the Crown's key witness in an unrelated criminal matter.

The court found a significant appearance of divided loyalties, particularly concerning the cross-examination of the key witness whose credibility was central to the defence theory.

Despite the accused's desire to retain counsel and counsel's assertion of no actual conflict, the court prioritized public confidence in the administration of justice and ordered the removal of counsel.

The Applicant Mother and Respondent Father, who have a child with special needs, were before the court on a motion for parenting time and a cross-motion for child support.

The court addressed only the parenting time aspect, finding a material change in circumstances due to the Father's lack of contact with the child for eight months.

The court ordered a gradual restoration of the Father's parenting time, starting with specific daytime visits, and maintained the Mother's sole decision-making authority with a requirement to consult the Father.

The Mother's requests for a parenting course for the Father, OCL involvement, and unilateral passport/travel authority were denied.

The Father's request for joint decision-making and immediate equal parenting time was also denied.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought to exclude evidence of his criminal record (including sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm) and to redact references to these convictions from an expert's forensic psychiatry report.

The court denied the application, finding that while the convictions were prejudicial, they formed a vital basis for the expert's opinion, particularly regarding potential antisocial conduct disorder or sexual paraphilia.

The court emphasized that the jury must have access to the full foundation of expert evidence to assess its weight, even considering Gladue principles for Indigenous accused.

This ruling addresses the admissibility of a statement provided by the accused, Donald Musselman, to police, who is charged with second-degree murder.

The defence challenged the statement's voluntariness and alleged breaches of Charter rights.

The court found that the interviewing officer undermined the accused's right to silence by suggesting his credibility would be diminished if he did not speak to police and later testified at trial.

Consequently, the statement was not proven voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and was excluded from evidence.

The Crown brought a motion for certiorari and mandamus in a dangerous offender application, challenging the sentencing judge's decision to rule Victim Impact Statements (VIS) inadmissible without reviewing them.

The VIS related to uncharged conduct that had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Superior Court granted certiorari, finding that the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider the VIS before ruling on their admissibility.

The court directed the sentencing judge to hear the VIS in a voir dire, emphasizing the broad range of information required in dangerous offender hearings and the procedural fairness owed to all parties, including victims.

The applicant, David Blackwood, sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code following a detention order for charges including robbery and choking.

The court found a material change in circumstances, triggering a de novo review.

Despite a strong surety and consideration of difficult jail conditions, the court determined that Blackwood's extensive history of non-compliance with court orders and criminal record indicated a substantial likelihood of re-offending.

The application for release was dismissed, and his detention was maintained.

The Father brought a motion seeking increased parenting time and disclosure of the child's information.

The Mother brought a cross-motion for child support, retroactive child support, income disclosure, and baby-proofing of the Father's home.

The court ordered three supervised visits for the Father, transitioning to unsupervised alternating weekend parenting time.

The Mother's request for a different supervisor was denied.

Temporary child support of $573 per month was ordered, with retroactive support deferred to a full evidentiary hearing.

Various orders regarding communication, safety measures, and disclosure were also made.

This is a costs endorsement following a successful motion by the Applicant (Father) for parenting time with his child.

The Applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court applied Rule 24(1) of the Family Law Rules, considering factors such as the importance and complexity of the issues, the parties' conduct, and access to justice.

While the Applicant was largely successful in obtaining parenting time, the court found the issues not complex and did not find bad faith on the Respondent's part, noting her language difficulties, change of counsel, and stated fear of the Father.

Given the Respondent's limited financial means and Legal Aid funding, the court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, reducing the amount sought to $4,000 to ensure access to justice.

The respondent father sought to vary a 2016 final order regarding parenting time, alleging a material change in circumstances due to the children's aging and the mother's alleged withholding of time.

The applicant mother opposed, citing the father's unresolved addiction issues and arguing no material change.

The court found that the children's significant aging (from very young to 5 and 8 years old) constituted a material change.

The court granted a temporary, without prejudice variation to increase the father's parenting time, including overnights, but requested the Office of the Children's Lawyer to ascertain the children's views before a final order.

The mother's cross-motion was dismissed.

The court also addressed child support, finding insufficient evidence to impute income to the father but granting the mother leave to return on the issue.

The applicant sought judicial review by way of certiorari of an Ontario Court of Justice decision to transfer a Provincial Offences Act prosecution, concerning charges under the Taxation Act, from a justice of the peace to a judge.

The applicant also challenged the standing of federal Crown counsel.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice in the transfer and confirming the validity of the Crown's delegation of authority.

The court reiterated that certiorari is a discretionary remedy rarely granted in Provincial Offences Act matters.

Danielle Leblanc, initially charged with first-degree murder, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice after providing a statement that led to her common-law spouse's second-degree murder plea.

The court considered the unique circumstances of Leblanc being a victim of severe and prolonged domestic violence by the murderer, which significantly reduced her moral blameworthiness.

Despite the seriousness of obstructing justice in a murder investigation, the court granted a conditional discharge with 12 months probation, emphasizing proportionality and the limited application of general deterrence in cases involving battered women.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking parenting time with the child, who he had not seen since the parties' separation ten months prior.

The respondent mother sought supervised parenting time, alleging past abuse and mental health concerns regarding the father.

The court, applying the child's best interests principle and the maximum contact principle, found no sufficient evidence to warrant supervised access.

The court crafted a gradual step-up parenting schedule for the father, rejecting his proposed immediate extensive schedule as too abrupt, and dismissed the mother's request for supervision.

This is a costs endorsement following a dismissed contempt motion.

The Respondent father brought a contempt motion against the Applicant mother for withholding access to their children.

The father failed to attend the final hearing of the contempt motion, leading to its dismissal.

The mother sought substantial indemnity costs in the amount of $44,732.89.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $25,000 to the mother, considering the father's financial situation, the understandable actions of both parties given the children's wishes, and the principle that prohibitive costs should not bar access to justice in family matters.

The applicant, Michael Kilbride, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for charges including breaking into a private residence and assault.

The court found that the new bail plan, which included house arrest with his mother and cash pledges, did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a de novo hearing or to address the original concerns.

The applicant's extensive criminal record, history of failing to comply with court orders, and the surety's past inability to supervise him led the court to conclude that the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention remained strong.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

The appellant, Ali Fahad, appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the trial judge erred in finding that the Crown proved a lawful Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand, given the absence of evidence regarding the exact words used by the officer and errors in police notes and advice.

The court found that while exact words are not always necessary, the absence of evidence of the demand's content, coupled with the officer's errors, rendered the conviction unreasonable.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of Mr. Mtonga on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to s. 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The appeal raised three issues: misapprehension of evidence by the trial judge, insufficient reasons for reasonable doubt, and application of an incorrect mens rea test.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge did not misapprehend the officer's evidence, provided sufficient reasons by considering the accused's request for a "last chance" to provide a sample, and correctly applied the subjective mens rea test requiring proof of intent to refuse or fail on purpose.

The court emphasized that the accused's request for a further attempt, combined with incomplete officer notes, created a reasonable doubt as to his intent, distinguishing the case from others where such a request was absent.

Michael Kilbride, charged with drug trafficking, sought a review of his detention order under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being initially detained on primary and secondary grounds.

The court considered a new bail plan involving residential drug addiction treatment at the Salvation Army's Anchorage program.

The judge found that the comprehensive program, coupled with support from a CMHA worker and diligent counsel, mitigated the primary and secondary ground concerns, including the risk of reoffence and failure to appear.

The court also considered the applicant's asthma and the COVID-19 pandemic as factors favoring release, concluding that continued detention was not necessary.