Bruce E. Pugsley

The applicant (father) sought an order for the return of the child after the respondent (mother) breached a temporary custody order by refusing to return the child following weekend access.

The respondent, facing criminal charges related to the applicant, filed extensive material and a cross-motion to change custody to her home.

The court found that the respondent deliberately disobeyed the court order without plausible justification and that her actions demonstrated she was willing to prioritize her own needs over those of the child.

The court maintained the existing arrangement whereby the child resides with the applicant and the respondent has weekend access, and awarded costs to the applicant.

The respondent father moved for an order transferring a family law matter from the Ontario Court of Justice to the Superior Court of Justice and for leave to bring an urgent motion regarding child access and division of proceeds from the sale of the former shared home.

The applicant mother sought to restrict in-person visits due to the child's medical vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion as non-urgent and beyond jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicant's concerns regarding the child's medical condition were medically justified and that alternative arrangements through phone and video visits should be arranged pending the resolution of the pandemic.

A motion review concerning custody and access of a child following a trial judgment.

The respondent father refused to comply with the trial judge's custody order awarding custody to the applicant mother and attempted to invoke a prior interim order instead.

The respondent failed to return the child on the scheduled date and sent a cease-and-desist letter asserting the interim order remained valid.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for the child's return.

The court suspended all in-person access pending further order, finding the respondent ungovernable by law and a serious risk to the child's wellbeing.

Limited phone or video access was permitted at the applicant's discretion.

The matter was adjourned for review after the COVID-19 emergency.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant mother sought an emergency order for the return of her child from the respondent father, who had taken the child to Newfoundland and Labrador during a school break in March 2020 and refused to return her.

The respondent claimed it was unsafe to return due to COVID-19 pandemic concerns.

The court found that the parties had an established arrangement whereby the mother had sole custody, the child's ordinary residence was in Ontario, and the trip was intended as a short holiday.

The court granted an order requiring the child's immediate return to the mother's custody, with specific deadlines and police enforcement provisions.

An emergency motion heard in chambers concerning a custody dispute between two parents.

The respondent father had retained the child in violation of a final custody order made by Justice P. Clay at trial, which awarded custody to the applicant mother with limited access to the father.

The father had appealed the trial judgment to the Superior Court and sought a stay of the order.

The court found that the father's retention of the child constituted a blatant breach of the valid court order and that the father's assertion that the order was null and void was legally unfounded.

The court issued an emergency order requiring immediate apprehension and return of the child to the mother's custody and suspended all access by the father pending further court order.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE checkpoint stop on June 21, 2019.

The Crown presented evidence from three police officers and a qualified technician demonstrating clear signs of impairment at the roadside and breath test results of 131 and 113 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath test results on the basis that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel due to alleged language comprehension issues.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, rejecting the Charter application and finding no language barrier to the defendant's understanding of his rights.

A motion concerning jurisdiction and venue in a child protection matter.

The Children's Aid Society of Dufferin County brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children, with the respondents seeking to have the matter heard in Orangeville (Dufferin County) rather than Guelph (Wellington County), where the original protection application had been filed.

The court found that despite the children's current residence in Dufferin County and the respondents' preference for Orangeville, the overwhelming connection to Guelph—where the Guelph CAS had been involved for over a year, where the original protection application was filed, and where prior court orders had been made—warranted transferring the matter to Guelph for hearing.

The appellant appealed his conviction for using a handheld device contrary to Section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant argued that the trial Justice of the Peace erred by drawing an improper inference regarding what the appellant would have done if the facts supported his explanation (that he was holding an ignition interlock device, not a cell phone) and by improperly constraining cross-examination regarding prior contact between the officer and the appellant.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly assessed credibility and that the officer's observations provided ample basis for conviction.

The defendant, a retired teacher and educational mentor, was charged with common assault for allegedly touching the complainant, an 11-year-old boy, on his buttock without consent during a mentoring session.

The complainant and his parents had consented to various sensory-based therapeutic touch techniques as part of the defendant's mentoring practice.

The Crown alleged the defendant touched the complainant's buttock over his pants without consent.

The defendant denied the allegation, testifying that he placed his hand on the complainant's back while demonstrating a "shield over the heart" technique to help the complainant cope with bullying.

The court found the complainant credible but unreliable in his memory, and found the defendant's denial sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted.

The appellant, a company convicted of breaching a municipal zoning bylaw by stacking shipping containers to a height exceeding the maximum permitted height of 5 metres, appealed the conviction and sought to introduce fresh evidence on appeal.

The fresh evidence consisted of internet-sourced information regarding standard shipping container sizes.

The court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding that the evidence was available and discoverable at trial, the issue of container height was clearly foreseeable, and the appellant's legal counsel had been aware of and addressed this issue during trial.

The appellant's decision not to call evidence at trial was an informed tactical decision by counsel, and the appellant could not now introduce such evidence on appeal.

The applicant brought a motion to change a consent order regarding child support and section 7 expenses (daycare, medical, dental, and extracurricular activities).

The original order required mutual written consent for section 7 expenses, with costs shared 70-30 between the respondent and applicant.

The applicant sought to remove the respondent's consent requirement for daycare and obtain arrears.

The court granted interim relief allowing the applicant to choose daycare and requiring the respondent to pay 70% of daycare costs commencing August 19, 2019, but dismissed claims for arrears without prejudice to trial.

The court found that disputed factual issues regarding the applicant's unpaid volunteer work and the respondent's knowledge required a full trial rather than resolution on the motion record.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

After being stopped, the officer discovered outstanding warrants and arrested the accused, but failed to immediately provide the right to counsel due to the accused's concerns about his child in the vehicle.

The officer subsequently smelled alcohol, initiated a drinking and driving investigation, and the accused failed a roadside test and subsequent breathalyzer tests.

The court found a technical breach of the accused's right to counsel upon the initial arrest but declined to exclude the breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also rejected defence arguments regarding the admissibility of the breath test results under recent Criminal Code amendments.

The accused was found guilty, fined $1,000, and prohibited from driving for one year.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking to increase child support and recover unpaid section 7 expenses.

The respondent cross-moved seeking custody of the child and shared transportation costs for access exchanges.

The court dismissed the respondent's custody claim and shared transportation claim, finding no changed circumstances warranting such changes.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $1,350 in arrears for past section 7 expenses (daycare) based on his consent to pay half of $2,700.

Child support was set at $595 monthly for September through December 2018 based on his 2018 income of $64,000, and $398 monthly commencing January 2019 based on his current estimated income of $43,348.

The matter was adjourned to August 14, 2019.

The defendant pleaded guilty to common assault after initially facing a sexual assault charge.

The assault occurred at the defendant's residence during a party where the defendant, then 20 years old, engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with the complainant, a 15-year-old friend of his younger sister.

The defendant partially inserted his penis into the complainant's vagina without consent on two separate occasions despite her explicit objections.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent jail sentence (served on weekends) followed by two years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the complainant or her family, a 200-metre exclusion zone, and mandatory counselling on relationships and consent.

A five-year weapons prohibition was also imposed.

The applicant sought leave to amend his motion to change to include a request for custody of the child, with the respondent seeking to transfer the matter to Orillia and increase child support based on the applicant's higher disclosed income.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to amend, finding no material change in circumstances warranting a custody claim.

The court granted the respondent's motion to transfer the matter to Orillia as the more convenient forum.

The court also increased child support from $446.83 to $540.13 per month based on the applicant's 2017 disclosed income of $58,430.00, effective November 1, 2018.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2015 consent order, seeking sole custody and to change the child's school from Shelburne to Orangeville.

The applicant opposed and brought a cross-motion for sole custody and supervised access with drug testing.

The central issue was the applicant's proposed move to Milton, Ontario.

The court found that both parties were motivated by acrimony rather than genuine child protection concerns.

The court permitted the move to Milton but maintained the shared residency arrangement and required the applicant to transport the child to school in Orangeville.

The court rejected allegations of drug abuse and violence as tactical responses to the mobility dispute.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five Criminal Code offences arising from a series of incidents on September 7-8, 2018.

The defendant stole a relative's pickup truck and engaged in a prolonged dangerous driving incident on Highway 10 in Grey County, repeatedly ramming a vehicle driven by Ms. A. and her two passengers.

After the victims escaped to a gas station, the defendant led police on a high-speed chase across three counties, evading multiple police services, driving at speeds up to 161 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, and deliberately ramming a police cruiser.

The defendant was sentenced to 12 months in custody (after 9 months pre-sentence custody credit), a three-year driving prohibition, three years probation with treatment conditions, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant appeared for sentencing on two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm.

The defendant drove his vehicle into oncoming traffic, striking two vehicles and injuring two individuals.

His blood alcohol concentration was between 155 and 200 mg/100ml.

The Crown sought 12 to 15 months in custody, while the defence proposed 6 to 8 months.

Emphasizing general deterrence and the severe consequences of impaired driving, the court sentenced the defendant to 12 months in custody, followed by two years of probation and a three-year driving prohibition.

The applicant mother obtained an ex parte order granting her sole custody and discretionary access to the respondent father, alleging physical discipline and anger issues.

On review of the ex parte order and the father's cross-motion for custody and access, the court vacated the ex parte order.

The court found no current need for supervised access, noting the father admitted to a single incident of inappropriate discipline and promised not to repeat it.

The court granted the mother interim custody and the father unsupervised access every other weekend and midweek, emphasizing the need for both parents to co-parent without involving the children in their conflict.

The applicant sought custody of two children and sought to restrict the respondent's access to supervised visits only, citing concerns about physical discipline and anger management.

The respondent sought to restore what he characterized as the status quo of every weekend access.

The court found that the status quo was the applicant having custody with the respondent exercising weekend access and paying chart child support.

The court rejected the applicant's request for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence to warrant such restriction.

The court established an access schedule of every other weekend and midweek Wednesday visits, with special Christmas access provisions.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents supporting the children's relationship with the other parent and discouraged cross-examination of children about their time with the other parent.