B. White

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home and related relief, including disbursement of sale proceeds.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for child and spousal support, sought to set the parties' respective incomes, and requested dismissal of the sale motion.

Both parties sought orders restraining disparaging comments.

The court declined to order the sale of the matrimonial home, finding that doing so would prejudice the best interests of the child who has special needs requiring stability.

The court ordered the parties to continue sharing expenses for the home equally.

No temporary spousal support was awarded, but child support was ordered on an offset basis.

Both parties were ordered to refrain from disparaging comments and to provide complete financial disclosure.

This divorce action involved the equalization of net family properties between the Applicant, Pamela Joan Peters, and the Respondent, Robert Ernest Colin Peters.

Key issues included the determination of whether the Colonization Road home was a matrimonial home, the valuation of various assets and debts at the date of marriage and separation, and the reimbursement for post-separation expenses paid by the Applicant.

The court found the Colonization Road home to be a matrimonial home, which prevented the Respondent from deducting its date of marriage value.

The court made specific findings on the values of household goods, trailers, tools, credit card debts, and other assets, and determined the amounts for post-separation expense reimbursements, ultimately ordering an equalization payment and further reimbursements to the Applicant.

In an uncontested trial, the applicant sought the remaining proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home ($19,930.04) on account of an equalization of net family property, as well as the transfer of a snowmobile.

The respondent had failed to provide financial disclosure despite a court order.

The court reviewed the applicant's net family property statement, made minor adjustments, and found the respondent owed the applicant $22,723.95.

The court ordered the funds held in trust to be paid to the applicant in full satisfaction of the equalization claim, ordered the transfer of the snowmobile, and awarded $1,000 in costs to the applicant.

The trial addressed the quantum of spousal support payable by the respondent to the applicant following a long marriage and the applicant's severe medical disability.

The court applied a non-compensatory model of need, considering the applicant's Canada Pension Plan disability benefits and the respondent's employment income.

A central issue was the treatment of Manulife insurance benefits covering 95% of the applicant's long-term care costs.

The court decided to include these non-taxable insurance payments in the respondent's income for Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines calculations, while also accounting for the respondent's insurance premium costs.

Spousal support was awarded at the lower end of the Guidelines range, and specific orders were made for the distribution of past insurance payouts and the ongoing management of benefits.

Retroactive spousal support for the period the applicant was hospitalized was denied.

Following a fatal rear-end collision between a pickup truck and a tractor on a rural roadway, the accused challenged a search warrant used to obtain hospital records relating to blood testing.

Applying Garofoli and Grant, the court found the information to obtain was wholly deficient, the warrant violated s. 8 of the Charter, and the hospital records had to be excluded under s. 24(2).

The excluded records left insufficient evidence on the over-80 count, which was dismissed.

Relying on the breath reading, expert toxicology evidence, admissions, reconstruction evidence, speed, and delayed reaction, the court nevertheless found impaired driving causing death and dangerous driving causing death proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appellant appealed a conviction for failing to comply with a recognizance contrary to s. 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued the verdict was unreasonable, the reasons were inadequate, and the trial judge improperly applied the credibility analysis from R. v. W.(D.).

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court held that strict adherence to the W.(D.) formula is unnecessary so long as the substance of the instruction is respected.

Reviewing the reasons as a whole, the court found the trial judge properly assessed credibility, rejected the appellant’s explanation, and concluded the Crown proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused, a 25-year-old member of the Nipissing First Nation with an extensive violent criminal history, was sentenced following his guilty plea to breaching a high-risk offender recognizance under section 810.2 of the Criminal Code and uttering a threat to burn property contrary to section 264.1.

The breach involved failing to notify police of a change of address.

The threat was made at his mother's apartment complex when he was denied entry to retrieve belongings.

The court imposed a sentence of 45 days jail to be served intermittently on weekends, along with a three-year probation order with conditions including anger management and substance abuse counselling, cultural and First Nations-based programming, and no contact with the complainants.

The accused pleaded guilty to two breaches of a section 810.2 recognizance and possession of marijuana.

The recognizance required the accused not to consume or possess drugs or alcohol and to carry a copy of the order.

The accused was arrested with 2.4 grams of marijuana and could not produce the recognizance.

The court imposed a sentence of four months jail, less 78 days pre-plea custody, leaving 42 days to serve, followed by a two-year probation order with conditions including abstinence from alcohol and drugs, reporting to probation, and participation in culturally appropriate counselling and assessment.