Benjamin F. Pritchard

Joseph Pauze was sentenced for possessing fentanyl for the purposes of trafficking and crystal methamphetamine.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of 4-8 years for fentanyl and 3-6 months consecutive for methamphetamine, while the defendant sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the dangerous nature of fentanyl, the local opioid crisis, the defendant's lengthy criminal record including prior trafficking convictions, and mitigating factors such as his age, poor health, and cooperation.

The court found the trafficking level to be beyond street level and emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

A six-year sentence for fentanyl trafficking and a concurrent six-month sentence for methamphetamine possession were imposed, along with forfeiture, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

Joseph Pauze was found guilty of possession of crystal methamphetamine and possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation, and a subsequent search incident to arrest revealed the narcotics.

Pauze admitted to possessing crystal methamphetamine for personal use but denied knowledge of the fentanyl, claiming it belonged to the car's owner, a known drug dealer.

The court rejected Pauze's testimony as illogical and untrustworthy, finding that he was in actual possession of the fentanyl.

Given the significant value of the fentanyl and the presence of drug paraphernalia, the court inferred that the possession was for the purpose of trafficking, leading to a conviction on all counts.

The defendant estate trustee brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action challenging the deceased's will for delay.

The plaintiff, the deceased's separated spouse, commenced the action in 2013 but took few steps to advance it.

The plaintiff conceded the deceased's capacity but maintained his challenge based on undue influence.

The court declined to dismiss the action, finding the delay was explained by the plaintiff's advanced age and the COVID-19 pandemic, and that a fair trial was still possible.

The court ordered the matter set down for trial.

The applicant commenced an action for spousal support and an interest in a home against her spouse, who suffers from Alzheimer's disease and is a special party under the Family Law Rules.

Competing motions were brought by the spouse's sister and son to represent him in the litigation.

The court appointed the son, noting that the spouse had previously executed a power of attorney for property and a will naming the son as his attorney and executor, demonstrating trust and confidence in him.

This is a costs decision following a 21-day trial in a custody and access dispute between the parents of a child.

The father brought an application and motion to change seeking sole custody and variation of access, while the mother opposed these claims.

The father was completely unsuccessful, and the trial resulted in termination of detailed paternal access provisions and replacement with access subject to the child's wishes.

The mother sought costs on a full recovery basis totalling $102,700.

The court awarded costs of $81,046 plus GST, finding the mother was the successful party and entitled to costs from the date of her settlement offer on a full recovery basis, while excluding costs relating to certain discrete motions that should have been dealt with at the time they were heard.

A 20-day trial in a high-conflict custody and access dispute involving a child who was 15 years old at the time of judgment.

The father sought to vary custody from the mother to himself and sought access enforcement orders.

The mother opposed the variation and sought to restrict paternal access to the child's wishes and subject to Children's Aid Society approval.

The court found that a material change in circumstances had occurred since the prior 2003 consent order, primarily due to a traumatic incident at the father's cottage in 2006 where the father was highly intoxicated and engaged in dangerous behavior, and allegations of sexual abuse by the child.

The court dismissed the father's claim for custody variation and access enforcement, finding that the child's estrangement from her father was a natural response to his conduct rather than parental alienation by the mother.

The court terminated the detailed access provisions of the 2003 order and replaced them with a provision that access would be subject to the child's wishes.