Avraham Baratz

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a summary judgment motion seeking protection findings for the child A.J. and an order for placement with the maternal aunt under Society supervision.

The child's mother and maternal aunt consented to the motion, but the father opposed the placement, advocating for the child to be placed in his care.

The court found the child to be in need of protection, a finding consented to by all parties.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and considering the child's best interests under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court dismissed the father's plan, citing concerns about his undisclosed criminal history, inconsistent living arrangements, and inability to cooperate with the maternal aunt.

The court granted the Society's motion, ordering the child's placement with the maternal aunt, emphasizing the stability and positive care provided by the aunt since the child's birth as the least disruptive alternative.

Stephan Headley was charged with fraud, personation, and forgery.

The Crown applied under s. 715 of the Criminal Code to admit the preliminary inquiry testimony of a deceased witness, Dean Karahojitis, a former Scotiabank loans officer who identified Headley as the person who impersonated Glenford Jones.

The defence argued the evidence was highly prejudicial and unfair due to new counsel and new evidence impugning Karahojitis's credibility.

The court granted the application, finding that the accused had a full opportunity to cross-examine at the preliminary inquiry, and the defence would still be able to challenge Karahojitis's credibility through other witnesses at trial.

The court balanced the fair treatment of the accused with society's interest in admitting probative evidence, concluding that admission, with appropriate jury instructions, would ensure a fair trial.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a Crown wardship order to free a child for adoption.

The child had been apprehended from her mother's care in March 2012 due to the mother's untreated schizophrenia and inability to provide adequate care.

The mother sought return of the child under court-ordered supervision.

The father, who had been absent from the proceedings for over a year, appeared at trial seeking placement of the child with him and his common law partner.

The court found that neither parent could adequately meet the child's needs.

The mother's mental illness posed ongoing risk despite medication compliance, and the father's pattern of deception, lack of involvement, and uninformed planning made placement with him unsafe.

The court granted Crown wardship to enable adoption as the only option likely to promote the child's best interests, protection, and wellbeing.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access for two children who had been in continuous care of the Society for 24 months.

The respondent parents opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial regarding their capacity to parent the children with appropriate support.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the Society's motion, making both children Crown wards without access.

The decision emphasized the importance of permanence and stability for children in care, the passage of time as a significant factor in child development, and the parents' demonstrated lack of sustained commitment to their children.

Sentencing following a jury conviction for fraud over $5000 arising from a tax refund scheme involving falsified charitable donation receipts.

The offender, a tax preparer, filed 26 fraudulent returns over three taxation years, generating approximately $129,381 in improper refunds, though his personal gain was estimated at about $31,500.

The defence sought a conditional sentence while the Crown requested a custodial term.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary objectives for mid‑range fraud of this scale and that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the principles of sentencing under ss. 718 to 718.2 of the Criminal Code.

A custodial sentence followed by probation was imposed.