Carly Jennifer White

This decision addresses the costs of two motions brought by the applicant and respondent in a family law matter concerning the sale of matrimonial property and financial disclosure.

The court found that neither motion should have proceeded to a hearing, noting the applicant's initial frustration but also her failure to adjust her motion once issues resolved, and her non-compliance with financial disclosure rules.

The respondent was successful on the financial disclosure issue.

The court awarded costs of $3,000 to the respondent, payable by the applicant from her share of the matrimonial home sale proceeds.

The Respondent father successfully brought a motion to prevent the Applicant mother from moving the children outside St. Catharines.

This endorsement addresses the costs of that motion.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the Respondent father, finding that while the Applicant mother's resistance to deferring the interim move was ill-advised, her conduct did not rise to the level of "egregious or reprehensible" to warrant substantial indemnity costs.

The court fixed costs at $1,500, considering proportionality and reasonableness, and noting that the Respondent father's offer to settle did not meet the strict requirements for full recovery costs under the Family Law Rules.

The Respondent father brought an emergency motion to prevent the Applicant mother from moving their two children (aged six and five) outside of St. Catharines, Ontario.

The mother had filed an application seeking leave to move with the children to Watertown, New York, and intended to make an interim move to Kingston, Ontario.

The court, confirming the urgency previously determined by a Triage Judge, found that while the existing custody order did not explicitly preclude the move, it would significantly impact the father's access.

The court granted the father's emergency motion, issuing a temporary order prohibiting the mother from moving the children's residence outside St. Catharines without the father's prior written consent or further court order, pending the final determination of the mobility application.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking validation of email service and an order preventing the applicant mother from moving the children outside St. Catharines.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, made a preliminary determination that the matter was urgent, citing the mother's stated intention to move the children to Kingston in April or May 2020.

The court validated service by email and set a deadline for the mother to file responding materials, referring the motion to another judge for a full hearing.

The offender, Innocent Annih, was found guilty of three criminal offences: conspiracy to import heroin, and two counts of attempted possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking.

The total amount of heroin involved was approximately 1 kilogram, with an estimated street value between $122,500.00 and $396,000.00.

Annih, a 49-year-old first-time offender with a positive community reputation, was involved in a sophisticated importation scheme.

The Crown sought 12 years' imprisonment, while the Defence suggested 6 to 8 years.

The court considered general deterrence, denunciation, specific deterrence, and rehabilitation as key sentencing principles.

Aggravating factors included the multiple shipments, sophisticated nature of the scheme, and the quantity of heroin.

Mitigating factors included Annih's lack of prior criminal record and community contributions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years' imprisonment, along with a firearms and weapons prohibition order and a Secondary DNA Order.

The accused, Innocent N. Annih, was tried without a jury on three counts: conspiracy to import heroin, attempted possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking (Port Perry), and attempted possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking (Halton Hills).

The Crown's case was circumstantial, alleging Annih's knowing involvement in a scheme to import heroin using rented mailboxes and false identities.

Annih denied knowledge, claiming he was duped into picking up "Christmas presents" for an elder.

The court rejected Annih's evidence as incredible and found the circumstantial evidence overwhelming, leading to convictions on all three counts.

The accused, charged with five indictable offences including assault, mischief, threatening death, and breaching bail conditions, sought release on bail.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the accused had failed to meet his onus under the reverse onus provisions.

The proposed plan of release, involving three sureties and house arrest, was deemed inadequate given the serious nature of the allegations, the accused's apparent disregard for court orders, and the sureties' lack of knowledge regarding the accused's activities and lifestyle.

The court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the accused would commit further criminal offences endangering public safety, particularly that of the vulnerable complainant.