Brooke Rogers

A family law trial addressing decision-making responsibility, parenting time, child support, and spousal support following the separation of parties married for approximately ten years with two children.

The applicant sought joint decision-making and increased parenting time with both children, as well as spousal support.

The respondent sought sole decision-making regarding one child and shared parenting time.

The court ordered shared decision-making with tie-breaking authority allocated differently for each child based on their circumstances and preferences.

Parenting time arrangements were maintained as established.

Child support was set at a nominal amount reflecting shared custody of one child and sole custody of the other with the respondent.

Spousal support was awarded on a time-limited basis to recognize the applicant's economic disadvantage from having left the workforce to care for the children.

The court considered costs following a family law trial between R.M. (the father) and C.D. (the mother).

Both parties sought costs, each claiming greater success at trial.

The court found that success was divided: the father was more successful on parenting issues, while the mother was more successful on financial issues.

The court reviewed the relevant principles and rules governing costs, including the impact of offers to settle and allegations of bad faith.

Ultimately, the court found no party acted in bad faith and that neither party was more successful overall.

As a result, no costs were awarded.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Z.M.L. for manslaughter under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The court found Z.M.L. guilty as a joint principal in a violent group assault that caused the death of William Wapoose.

The Crown sought the maximum three-year custody and supervision order, with a significant custodial component in an adult facility.

The defence argued for a Deferred Custody and Supervision Order (DCSO), asserting Z.M.L.'s involvement did not constitute serious bodily harm and that time on bail was sufficient.

The court rejected the DCSO, finding Z.M.L.'s actions caused serious bodily harm, and imposed a three-year custody and supervision order, consisting of eighteen months in an adult facility (with credit for time served) followed by eighteen months of conditional supervision.

The court emphasized accountability, rehabilitation, and denunciation, while acknowledging the principle of diminished moral blameworthiness for youth.

The accused, Courtney LaBelle, was convicted of second-degree murder for the stabbing death of her 11-year-old son.

The court determined the period of parole ineligibility, considering the brutal nature of the offence, the breach of trust, and the statutory requirement to prioritize denunciation and deterrence for offences involving child abuse.

Mitigating factors included the accused's Indigenous background and drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offence, which diminished her moral culpability.

The court balanced these factors, rejecting both the Crown's request for 18 years and the defence's request for 10 years, ultimately imposing a 15-year period of parole ineligibility.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Jonathan Yellowhead for manslaughter, following his conviction after a two-week trial.

The victim's death was attributed to hypothermia, blunt facial trauma, and ethanol intoxication.

The Crown sought 8-12 years of incarceration, while the defence proposed 3-5 years.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the accused's violent criminal history, and significant mitigating Gladue factors related to his Indigenous background and the intergenerational impacts of residential schools.

The court also granted 2:1 credit for pre-sentence custody due to "abhorrent conditions" in jail.

The final sentence imposed was five years and four months incarceration, with 51 months credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in 13 months remaining to serve, followed by a three-year probation order with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

The accused was charged with manslaughter following the death of a 17-year-old victim whose body was found in a park.

The victim died from hypothermia, blunt facial trauma, and ethanol intoxication.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance and DNA, to prove the accused assaulted the victim before leaving him in freezing temperatures.

The defence argued the police investigation was flawed and pointed to alternate suspects.

The court rejected the alternate suspect theories, finding the circumstantial evidence excluded any other reasonable alternative to the accused's guilt.

The court concluded the assault was a substantial contributing cause of death and found the accused guilty of manslaughter.

The applicant, charged with manslaughter, brought an application to exclude his clothing from evidence, arguing it was seized from his father's apartment during a warrantless search in violation of his s. 8 Charter rights.

The court found the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his father's home based on his familial and cultural background.

The court held the search was unreasonable as there were no exigent circumstances and the father did not provide valid, informed consent.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), emphasizing the seriousness of the police conduct in entering a dwelling without a warrant and the negative impact on the Indigenous community's trust in police.