C. Adams

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that a 4.5-year-old child with autism spectrum disorder be placed in extended society care, with reduced access for the parents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking to have the child placed in their care or to adjourn for updated parenting capacity assessments.

The court applied the test for summary judgment in child protection proceedings and found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the father's parenting plan and both parents' access.

The court noted that the existing parenting capacity assessments were outdated and that the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted the parents' ability to progress.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was ordered to proceed to trial.

The Children and Family Services for York Region brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding two children in need of protection and placing them in extended society care with no access to the parents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, access.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' history of unaddressed mental health issues, lack of parenting skills, and failure to work with the Society.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection and ordering extended society care with no access to the parents, but allowing sibling access.

During a trial for second degree murder where the accused allegedly drove his SUV onto a sidewalk and killed the victim following a nightclub altercation, defence counsel requested that the defence of provocation be put to the jury.

The trial judge refused the request, finding no air of reality to the defence.

The judge concluded there was no evidence that an ordinary person would be deprived of self-control by the insults exchanged, no evidence the accused actually lost self-control, and no evidence that the insults or the accused's reaction were sudden.

During a trial for second degree murder, the accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging the Crown breached its s. 7 disclosure obligations.

The accused argued the Crown failed to disclose that a key witness admitted to ongoing involvement in pin-pad frauds shortly before testifying.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding that the Crown's disclosure was otherwise exemplary, the omission was inadvertent, and the accused suffered no prejudice because the defence successfully elicited the witness's criminal conduct during cross-examination.