Apple C. Newton-Smith

In this uncontested family law trial, the court granted the applicant sole decision-making authority and primary residence of the child, a final restraining order against the respondent, retroactive and prospective child support with imputed income, section 7 expense contributions, occupation rent, defamation damages, and restrictions on future proceedings.

The respondent's pleadings had been struck due to his pattern of non-compliance with court orders, abusive and threatening behaviour toward the applicant and child, and abuse of the court process.

The respondent engaged in domestic violence, property destruction, harassment through social media, and defamatory posts.

The court found the respondent's conduct reprehensible and relentless, warranting comprehensive protective orders and financial remedies.

An uncontested trial in a family law matter involving a divorce application and ancillary relief.

The respondent mother sought sole decision-making responsibility for seven children, child support of $1,740 per month based on an imputed income of $60,000 for the applicant father, and orders dispensing with the applicant's consent for government documents, international travel, and removal from the Greater Toronto Area.

The applicant was noted in default and did not appear.

The court granted all relief sought, finding that sole decision-making was in the best interests of the children given the respondent's role as primary caregiver and the applicant's minimal involvement.

Child support was ordered with credit for $12,000 already paid.

Costs of $7,571 were awarded to the respondent.

Following a seven-year marriage between a Senegalese immigrant woman with minimal education and a university-educated man, the parties separated in 2012.

The trial addressed parenting arrangements for two teenage children, equalization of family property, and spousal support.

The court found that the respondent father had been inconsistent in exercising parenting time and had failed to maintain contact with his children despite having their phone numbers.

The court ordered that parenting time be in accordance with the children's wishes.

For equalization, the court found the matrimonial home was the only asset that could be reliably valued, with equity of approximately $64,000 at separation, entitling the applicant to $32,000.

The court awarded retroactive spousal support as a lump sum of $18,623, finding the applicant entitled to support on both compensatory and needs bases, given her role as primary caregiver, limited English proficiency at separation, and the respondent's failure to pay consistent child support.

The decision concerns a family law dispute regarding parenting time, decision-making, and child support for two children following the parents' separation.

The applicant father sought final orders for parenting time, child support, and related matters.

The respondent mother's pleadings were struck for repeated non-compliance with court orders, and the trial proceeded uncontested.

The court ordered regular parenting time for the father, maintained the mother as primary residence parent, and set child support and cost-sharing arrangements, declining to use enforcement mechanisms such as police enforcement or automatic residence change.

This criminal trial concerned the identification of the shooter in a firearms incident.

The defendant, Mr. Lowe, was charged with discharging a handgun with intent to endanger life and possession of a handgun without a licence.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the shooter.

The Crown relied primarily on the eyewitness identification of a tenant, Nina Hodder, who knew the defendant.

Despite inconsistencies in her testimony regarding minor details and her initial uncertainty under cross-examination, the court found her recognition evidence reliable, supported by the immediate nature of her identification, her prior familiarity with the defendant, and compelling circumstantial evidence regarding the sequence of events leading to and following the shooting.

The accused, K.N., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving his stepdaughter, T.S., between the ages of 14 and 18.

T.S. was the sole Crown witness.

The court found significant inconsistencies and improbabilities in T.S.'s testimony regarding key incidents, particularly the shower incident and the last alleged assault, which were not disclosed until much later or were inconsistent with other facts.

Coupled with a strong motive to fabricate, arising from T.S.'s mother's arrest and the stepfather seeking custody, the court was left with reasonable doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations.

K.N. was found not guilty of all counts.

This is a sentencing decision following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for a workplace fatality.

The corporate defendant and two individual supervisors were found guilty of failing to ensure proper rigging of concrete blocks and adequate training/supervision, leading to a worker's death.

The court applied established sentencing principles, emphasizing deterrence and considering the increased maximum penalties for OHSA offences.

Fines were imposed on the corporate defendant and the two individual supervisors, reflecting the seriousness of the breach and the need for general deterrence.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence (two firearms) found during a vehicle stop and search.

They alleged racial profiling, lack of grounds for the Cannabis Control Act (CCA) search, and violations of their s. 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights.

The court found no racial profiling and determined that the strong smell of fresh marijuana provided valid grounds for the CCA search.

While s. 10(a) rights were not breached, the court found a serious violation of the accused's s. 10(b) rights due to "lackadaisical" police conduct at the station, resulting in significant delays in facilitating access to counsel of choice.

However, applying the Grant factors under s. 24(2), the court concluded that the long-term repute of the justice system would be better served by admitting the evidence, given its reliability, the minimal impact of the breach on the accused (who eventually spoke to counsel), and society's strong interest in adjudicating serious charges on their merits.

The application for exclusion of evidence was dismissed.

The defendant, Allen Benson, was charged with impaired driving.

The defense brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) related to police entry into his home without a warrant and delay in reading rights to counsel.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no violation of the implied invitation to knock doctrine or section 10(b) rights.

The court then found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Benson's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol, based on erratic driving, a collision, the smell of alcohol, and breath samples.

Benson was convicted.

Raphael Sosa pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine, possession of proceeds, and possession of a loaded firearm.

The court considered his extreme youth (18 at the time of offences), lack of criminal record, and significant rehabilitative efforts since arrest, including completing high school and securing employment.

Despite the seriousness of the combined offences, which typically warrant a 3-5 year sentence, the court found that his exceptional circumstances warranted a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders.

Jack Himel pleaded guilty to possession and making child pornography.

The Crown sought 18 months custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence or 12-15 months.

The court found that despite significant mitigating circumstances and low risk of re-offence, a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the severity of the offences, particularly the making of child pornography, and the Supreme Court's directives on sentencing for child sexual offences.

A sentence of 12 months custody followed by 12 months probation was imposed.

The defendants, Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd., Octavio Tome, and Emanuel Tavares, brought three Charter motions (No. 5, 7, and 8) for a stay of proceedings, alleging violations of their section 7, 11(b), and 11(d) Charter rights, prosecutorial misconduct, and unreasonable delay.

Motion No. 5 alleged failure to call a witness, late disclosure of an immunity agreement, and failure to vet witnesses.

Motions No. 7 and 8 alleged unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter, applying the Jordan framework.

The court dismissed all motions, finding no irreparable prejudice from disclosure issues, no prosecutorial misconduct, and that the overall delay, after accounting for defence delay and discrete events, fell below the presumptive Jordan ceiling.

The court noted the defence's conduct contributed significantly to the trial's length.

The corporate defendant, Limen Group Const. (2019) Ltd., and two individual supervisors, Octavio Tome and Emanuel Tavares, faced charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a fatal incident where a concrete block, improperly hoisted by a crane, fell and killed a worker.

The charges alleged failure to ensure suitable attachment points for hoisting and failure to sufficiently train and supervise workers regarding the hazard of using embedded rebar as hoisting points.

The court found that the Crown proved the hazardous act and the defendants' roles as employer and supervisors.

The defendants' due diligence defence, which argued the worker acted alone, was rejected.

The court found that the unsafe practice was not an isolated incident and was known or should have been known to supervisors, and that the defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent such hazardous rigging.

All defendants were found guilty of the charges.

During a trial for offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Crown sought to admit expert evidence from an engineer, Mr. Khorsand, regarding structural engineering and hoisting practices.

The defence challenged his qualifications, alleging bias and negligence.

The court applied the two-component test for expert evidence admissibility, finding Mr. Khorsand met the threshold requirements as a properly qualified and unbiased expert.

The court determined that the benefits of admitting his evidence outweighed any potential harm, such as undue consumption of time, and allowed him to testify.

This is a sentencing decision for Jerzy Bogacz, who pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The incident involved high-speed, erratic driving on a busy highway, resulting in serious injuries to a taxi driver and passenger.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, probation, and a driving prohibition, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing factors, noting the egregious nature of the driving and the multiple victims.

Despite mitigating factors such as an early guilty plea and remorse, the court found a custodial sentence necessary.

Bogacz was sentenced to 9 months incarceration and a 5-year driving prohibition.

The court declined to impose a probation term or a restitution order, deeming civil court more appropriate for financial damages.

The accused, Mr. Sills, brought a Charter application to exclude firearms evidence seized from his multi-unit dwelling.

The search warrant, targeting another individual (Mr. Fisher) in a different unit, was found to be facially overbroad as it authorized a search of the entire building despite police knowledge of its multi-unit nature and an undertaking to search only Mr. Fisher's areas.

The court found a serious Section 8 Charter breach (unreasonable search and seizure) and a minimal Section 10(b) breach (delay in right to counsel).

The search was not justified by exigent circumstances under CDSA s. 11(7).

The court excluded the evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the high expectation of privacy in one's home and the seriousness of police disregard for established rules, particularly concerning lower-income housing.

The defendants brought a second set of pre-trial motions seeking a stay of proceedings for abuse of process, recusal of prosecutors, declarations of Charter violations, and various disclosure orders.

The motions alleged prosecutorial and investigative misconduct, including failure to disclose relevant case law, prejudicial filing of witness statements, and late disclosure of a police statement.

The court dismissed the motions for a stay, recusal, and prevention of new witnesses.

It also largely denied the disclosure requests, finding no merit in the misconduct allegations and that most requested items were matters for cross-examination.

The defendants, charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a workplace fatality, brought motions for disclosure of Ministry inspectors' disciplinary files and a "Director's Memo," and for a stay of proceedings based on alleged abuse of process and unreasonable pre- and post-charge delay.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that the requested disciplinary files were not relevant first-party disclosure and that the Director's Memo was protected by solicitor-client privilege, with no "innocence at stake" exception met.

The court also determined that the pre- and post-charge delays were not unreasonable under the Charter's fair trial and delay provisions, and that the alleged investigative and prosecutorial misconduct did not meet the high threshold for an abuse of process stay.

The applicant, Daveion Brown, sought a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay, arguing the total delay of 797 days (26 months and 6 days) exceeded the Jordan ceiling.

The Crown contended that defence delay and exceptional circumstances (discrete events, case complexity) justified the delay.

The court found 92 days of defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 705 days (23.2 months), which still exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

While acknowledging the case's complexity, the court rejected the Crown's arguments for discrete events and found the Crown's prosecution plan, despite a significant conflict-of-interest issue, was not unreasonable in minimizing delay for this complex case.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.