Bonnie C. Oldham

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking decision-making responsibility and challenging the respondent mother's unilateral relocation of their 15-year-old son to New Brunswick.

Despite serious concerns regarding the mother's historical gatekeeping, lack of notice of the move, and non-compliance with court orders, the Court found the father did not meet the burden to establish the relocation was contrary to the child's best interests.

Relocation was permitted on strict conditions.

To mitigate the gatekeeping and prevent marginalization of the father, the Court awarded joint decision-making responsibility, ordered a parenting time schedule maximizing the father's time during school breaks, and directed the parties to share travel costs.

The accused was tried on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on civilian and police observations, a standard field sobriety test, a drug influence evaluation, and toxicology evidence showing cocaine, benzoylecgonine, and buprenorphine in the accused's blood.

The court accepted that any degree of drug impairment would suffice, but found the driving evidence minimal, the drug recognition conclusion inconsistent with the toxicology findings, and the defence explanation of exhaustion reasonably possible.

Taken as a whole, the evidence left a reasonable doubt whether the accused was impaired by drugs or simply fatigued.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs.

Civilian witnesses at a Walmart observed the accused exhibiting concerning behaviours and watched him drive away in a truck.

Police located the accused upon his return to the store and noted signs of impairment, including confusion, unsteadiness, and slow speech.

A Drug Recognition Expert evaluation and a subsequent toxicology report confirming the presence of multiple substances, including fentanyl and methadone, corroborated the observations.

The court rejected the defence's argument regarding eyewitness identification frailties, finding the Crown proved identity and impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with assault and breach of probation following an alleged domestic incident at a hotel.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the evidence of the complainant, who alleged the accused punched her in the face and head.

The court found significant inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, including her denial of interactions with the accused's mother shortly after the incident, her fabricated claim that the accused barricaded himself in the room, and her denial of telling a witness she fell on the stairs.

Due to these inconsistencies and concerns about her level of intoxication, the court found her evidence unreliable.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, a personal support worker, was charged with two counts of sexual assault and one count of forcible confinement against two co-workers.

The allegations involved unwanted touching, kissing, and confinement in a patient's room and a shower room.

The accused denied the non-consensual nature of the interactions, claiming one relationship was consensual and denying the specific allegations of the other complainant.

The court applied the W.(D). framework and found that the accused's evidence, along with inconsistencies in the complainants' testimonies, raised a reasonable doubt.

The court also found the alleged confinement was not for a significant period of time.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle by drugs (cocaine) and possession of cocaine.

The accused, who is blind in one eye and suffers from other physical and cognitive disabilities due to a prior accident, performed poorly on a Drug Influence Evaluation (DIE).

However, there was no evidence of bad driving, and a toxicologist testified that the presence of cocaine in the accused's urine could not confirm impairment at the time of driving.

Applying the W.(D). framework, the court accepted the accused's testimony that he had consumed cocaine the day before and that his poor performance on the DIE was due to his disabilities and nervousness.

The court found the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the impaired driving charge, while entering a finding of guilt for the possession charge.

The accused were charged with multiple offences arising from a domestic disturbance.

Police responded to a 911 call reporting loud arguing and breaking glass.

The responding officer observed the male accused slam a door and, after the accused refused to exit and locked the door, the officer forced entry without a warrant, citing exigent circumstances.

A physical altercation ensued involving both accused and two officers.

The court applied the W.(D). test to assess credibility and found the officer had reasonable grounds to believe exigent circumstances existed under s. 529.3 of the Criminal Code, making the entry lawful.

The male accused was found guilty of assaulting a police officer, resisting arrest, and breaching a peace bond, but acquitted of mischief.

The female accused was found guilty of attempting to disarm a police officer and resisting arrest, but acquitted of possession of a weapon and assaulting a police officer with a weapon.

The respondent mother sought permission to relocate the child, Mason, from Ontario to New Brunswick.

The applicant father opposed the relocation.

The court considered the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act, including the child's strong wishes and preferences to remain in Ontario, the quality of the father's relationship with the child, the lack of compelling reasons for relocation, and the mother's concerning pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The court denied the temporary relocation order, finding that relocation was not in the child's best interests at this time.

The Children's Aid Society initiated child protection proceedings concerning S.D. The paternal great-grandmother, A.D., moved to be added as a party to the proceedings.

The maternal grandmother, L.P., opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and that A.D. was not a primary caregiver.

The Society did not oppose A.D.'s motion.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to add A.D. as a party, noting her significant and consistent caregiving role, and that the existing order for L.P. to make "reasonable access arrangements with A.D." constituted a right of access, making A.D. a "parent" under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Even if not a statutory parent, the court would exercise its discretion to add A.D. as a party.

The motion was granted.

The parties, unmarried parents of a three-year-old child, separated after a brief relationship marked by high conflict and incidents of domestic violence.

The mother sought sole decision-making responsibility and permission to relocate with the child from North Bay to Sudbury, while the father sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time in North Bay.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding that the parties' inability to communicate and the father's lack of trust made joint decision-making unworkable.

The court also authorized the relocation to Sudbury, concluding it was in the child's best interests given the mother's role as primary caregiver, her need for family support, and the father's failure to foster a cooperative relationship.

The father was granted generous parenting time and ordered to pay child support.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings in a Motion to Change proceeding.

The father had failed to comply with multiple court orders, including: cessation of child support payments (arrears of $11,900), failure to provide financial disclosure despite court orders and multiple adjournments, failure to pay a costs order, and refusal to engage in court-ordered reunification counselling.

The court found egregious and exceptional circumstances warranting the striking of the father's Response to Motion to Change, Affidavit in Support of Custody and Access, and Financial Statement.

However, recognizing the involvement of children and the potential merit of the father's claim regarding changed circumstances due to retirement, the court provided a pathway for re-engagement with specific compliance conditions to be met by December 31, 2020.

The accused was charged with two counts of breach of undertaking arising from incidents on July 4, 2019.

The Crown alleged that the accused attended at a residence in breach of a condition prohibiting him from attending at that location, and that he communicated with a named individual in breach of a non-communication condition.

The trial proceeded over two days.

The court found the undertaking valid and in force at the time of the alleged breaches.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused attended at the prohibited location and that he communicated with the named individual, both in breach of the undertaking conditions.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, though subsequently a stay was entered on one count pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with one count of assault and two counts of breach of recognizance.

The Crown alleged the accused slapped the complainant during a domestic dispute.

The accused denied the assault occurred and alternatively argued consent.

The court admitted similar fact evidence of prior domestic violence but found it had minimal probative value.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence and found the accused guilty of assault, rejecting the consent defence.

The accused was also found guilty of the two breach charges after conceding the Crown's case.

This is a costs decision following a temporary order on a motion for the return of a child to the applicant's home.

The motion also sought orders for temporary custody, child support, alternate weekend access, and school enrollment.

The respondent father was the successful party on the central issues of the child's primary residence and school enrollment.

The applicant mother argued there was divided success and that the respondent's conduct in involving police and Children's Aid Society before communicating with her was unreasonable.

The court found the respondent's conduct was not unreasonable and awarded costs at 60% of the respondent's bill rather than full recovery, considering the nature of the issues and the need for the motion.

The Crown brought an application under section 672.11(b) of the Criminal Code seeking an order for a mental assessment to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the alleged offences that would render him exempt from criminal responsibility under section 16(1).

The accused faced charges including break and enter, fail to comply with probation orders, resist peace officer, theft, and mischief.

The defence opposed the application.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding insufficient reasonable grounds to believe the accused suffered from a mental disorder or that he did not know his actions were wrong at the time of the offences.

This is a summary judgment motion in a child protection case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society sought a custody order granting sole custody of two children to their paternal grandparents, with whom they had been placed following the death of their father.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing that the matter required a trial.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to risk of physical and emotional harm, that ongoing court intervention was necessary, and that it was in the children's best interests to remain in the custody of the paternal grandparents.

The court granted the custody order and established a specific access schedule for the mother.

This is a costs decision following three separate motions heard on January 25, 2018, in a family law matter involving custody, access, and child support.

The applicant (father) was substantially successful on the issues of access, appointment of an Office of the Children's Lawyer, leave to amend, production of documents, removal of the child from Canada, and unsupervised access in Germany.

The respondent (mother) was unsuccessful on most contested issues, though the parties reached consent resolutions on access and child support.

The court awarded costs to the successful party on a partial indemnity basis, considering divided success, the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and proportionality.

In a child protection status review application, the Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking custody of a child who had suffered serious unexplained injuries at two months of age.

The child had been in foster care and subsequently in the care of paternal grandparents under a supervision order.

The biological mother opposed the motion, arguing that counselling she had undertaken created a genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to care for the child.

The court found that the unexplained injuries, combined with the mother's lack of insight, ongoing lack of cooperation with the Society, and the conclusions of a parenting capacity assessment, established an ongoing need for protection.

The court granted summary judgment, placing the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents with supervised access for the mother.

This is a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning two children who were apprehended in November 2015 following serious injuries inflicted by the mother's partner.

The mother sought return of the children to her care or placement with her mother.

The Society sought an order for extended care to facilitate adoption by the current kinship placement.

The court found that the mother had not adequately addressed the protection concerns despite significant support and services over 26 months.

The court ordered extended care of both children with the Society, with the children holding access rights to the mother at the Society's discretion.

Motion for interim temporary access to a child following an emergency motion.

The applicant mother sought to maintain primary residence and modify the respondent father's access schedule from two overnight midweek visits to evening visits only.

The respondent father sought to set aside the interim order and establish a shared parenting arrangement with significantly expanded access.

The court confirmed the established status quo of the mother as primary caregiver with the father having alternate weekend access and one midweek overnight visit, finding no compelling reasons to change the arrangement and noting the father's conduct in withholding the child created concerns about his willingness to respect the mother's relationship with the child.