Catherine H. Rhinelander

Criminal trial for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death under s. 320.13(3) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was driving at speeds between 149 km/hr and 192 km/hr in a 60 km/hr zone on a major arterial roadway in Toronto when he failed to negotiate a bend, crossed into oncoming traffic, and struck and killed the victim.

The court rejected defence challenges to the credibility of Crown witnesses including the collision reconstructionist and vehicle examiner, found the accused's driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of care, and was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt on all essential elements of the offence.

Finding of guilt entered.

Two accused were jointly charged on a fourteen-count indictment involving sexual assault, sexual assault causing bodily harm, making and possessing child pornography.

The offences were alleged to have occurred over more than two decades involving multiple complainants who were children of a family member of one accused.

The court considered a similar fact application by the Crown, ultimately dismissing the application with respect to two complainants whose evidence was found to be tainted by collusion and whose allegations of involvement by one accused were only disclosed after police informed one complainant of an unrelated assault on her child.

One accused pleaded guilty mid-trial to multiple counts involving child pornography and sexual assaults on two complainants.

On the remaining counts, the court found the first accused guilty of sexual assault on one complainant and guilty of two counts of possession of child pornography, while acquitting both accused of the remaining contested charges.

The court found insufficient credible and reliable evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt sexual assaults by the first accused on the other complainants, whose evidence was intertwined with collusion-tainted allegations.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of her section 11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time.

The applicant was charged with attempt murder, aggravated assault, assault with a weapon (x2), and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose arising from an incident on April 16, 2023.

The information was sworn on April 17, 2023, and the trial was scheduled to commence on August 5, 2025.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated conclusion of trial was 27 months and 28 days, which fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to establish both that the defence took meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault and one count each of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, alleged to have occurred between March 1, 2018 and January 31, 2020, against his spouse.

The charges involved allegations of forced vaginal intercourse, non-consensual anal intercourse on two occasions, assault with a jar of Vaseline, and assault causing a broken toe.

The trial proceeded on the basis of conflicting testimony between the complainant and the accused, with credibility being the central issue.

The court found the accused not guilty on all five counts, citing concerns regarding the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, inconsistencies in her testimony, and the timing of her allegations to police.

The respondent was convicted after a jury trial of assault by choking, assault causing bodily harm, unlawful confinement, and criminal harassment against the victim.

He was acquitted of uttering a threat to cause death.

The Crown sought judicial determination of facts for sentencing purposes and for a s. 752.1 assessment.

The respondent challenged the credibility and reliability of the victim's evidence on several material points, including who initiated contact, the frequency of meetings, and who informed the respondent of his mother's death.

The court conducted a thorough credibility assessment of both witnesses and made findings on the disputed facts, ultimately accepting the victim's evidence as more reliable and credible despite some inconsistencies.

This decision concerns an application by Martin Duah for a review of his detention under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant argued that the original justice erred in law, failed to provide sufficient reasons, and that there was a material change in circumstances.

The court reviewed the evidence, including new sureties and a revised release plan, but ultimately found the plan insufficient to address secondary ground concerns regarding public safety and supervision.

The application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered detained.

The court determined the beneficial ownership of the matrimonial home at 261 Prescott Avenue, Toronto, following the breakdown of the marriage between Elena Reshetnikova and Wayne Rawlins.

Joan Rawlins Singh, Wayne’s mother, claimed a 100% beneficial interest in the property, while Wayne and Elena sought partition and sale.

After extensive review of the evidence, including family history, property transfers, and credibility of witnesses, the court found that Joan and Wayne each hold a 50% beneficial interest in the property.

The court ordered the sale of the property, set out terms for the sale, and awarded costs for an adjournment to the applicant.

The court considered cross-motions for interim spousal support, child support, interim disbursements, and a preservation order in the context of a high-conflict family law proceeding.

The Respondent (husband) sought spousal support and interim disbursements, while the Applicant (wife) sought to impute income to the Respondent, child support, and spousal support.

The court dismissed the Respondent’s motion, finding he failed to establish a prima facie case for spousal support and that his financial disclosure was not credible.

The court imputed income to the Respondent for child support purposes and granted the Applicant’s motion in part, awarding child support but not spousal support at this stage.

The court declined to make a preservation order or require leave for further motions but left open the possibility of such orders if non-compliance with costs orders continues.

The decision addresses a motion by the applicant for retroactive and prospective child and spousal support, interim disbursements, striking the respondent’s pleadings or imposing financial penalties for non-compliance, and costs.

The court grants the motion in part, ordering child and spousal support based on the respondent’s self-reported income, imposing financial penalties for breaches of court orders, and requiring the respondent to provide further disclosure and retain a Chartered Business Valuator.

The court declines to add the respondent’s corporation as a party or pierce the corporate veil at this stage.

Costs are awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought to increase child support and retroactive arrears for their adult disabled son.

The respondent sought to terminate child support and section 7 expenses, and recover overpayments.

The court found a material change in circumstances and confirmed the son remained a "child of the marriage" due to disability.

Applying section 3(2)(b) of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, the court determined that the presumptive table amount was inappropriate given the son's receipt of ODSP and Passport funding.

The court calculated a reasonable monthly budget for the son and determined the respondent's child support obligation based on the shortfall, resulting in a reduced monthly payment.

The court also addressed retroactive overpayments and underpayments, finding the applicant owed the respondent a net amount.

Fixed section 7 contributions were terminated, but parties remained equally responsible for post-secondary expenses not covered by grants.

The Applicant mother sought final orders for sole decision-making responsibility, child support, and section 7 expenses for the child.

The Respondent father sought additional parenting time and joint decision-making responsibility.

The court, after an uncontested trial where the Respondent's pleadings were struck for financial issues, granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility with a duty to consult, ordered the father to pay child support based on his current income and arrears for section 7 expenses, and increased the father's parenting time beyond alternate weekends, including mid-week overnights, finding the previous contact insufficient for a child of the child's age.

The court also ordered life insurance as security for child support and continued health benefits.

The respondent brought a motion for the sale of the matrimonial home.

The applicant opposed, seeking to buy out the respondent's share and arguing that financial disclosure was delayed.

The court found that the respondent's pleading was sufficient to invoke the Partition Act.

While acknowledging the respondent's prima facie right to sale, the court delayed the sale to allow the applicant time to secure financing for a buyout, given the recent receipt of financial disclosure and the children's best interests.

If financing is not secured by a set date, the home must be listed for sale.

The Applicant sought summary judgment to enforce child support provisions of a separation agreement, while the Respondent sought to stay the summary judgment and remit the matter to arbitration, and to appoint a specific arbitrator.

The court confirmed its jurisdiction to hear the matter, dismissed the Respondent's motion to adjourn the summary judgment, and granted the Respondent's request to stay the summary judgment application, remitting the matter to arbitration.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion to appoint an uncertified arbitrator (William C. McDowell) and instead granted the Applicant's alternate request to appoint a certified family law arbitrator (Cheryl Goldhart), emphasizing the legal requirement for arbitrators to be properly credentialed for awards to be enforceable.

The Respondent father sought unsupervised and increased parenting time, including overnights, and equal parenting time after Labour Day.

The Applicant mother opposed this, requesting the continuation of supervised parenting time and bringing a cross-motion for primary residence and sole decision-making responsibility.

The court, applying the best interests of the child test, granted the father unsupervised daytime parenting time and supervised overnight parenting time, acknowledging his efforts to address past issues while noting serious concerns regarding his criminal history and lack of accountability.

The Applicant's cross-motion for sole decision-making and primary residence was dismissed as premature.

Mr. Sterling appealed a garnishment order and a previous costs order, arguing that the respondent, Ms. Gaskin, failed to properly serve cost submissions "in writing" and that he was unaware of the $8,000 costs order until much later.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that email service constituted valid "in writing" service under the Family Law Rules, especially given the amendments post-COVID-19.

The court concluded that Mr. Sterling's appeal stemmed from misunderstandings regarding service methods and the terms of a prior settlement agreement, none of which constituted valid grounds for appeal.

The court also awarded Ms. Gaskin $2,000 in costs for the appeal, considering Mr. Sterling's financial circumstances and the need to uphold the justice system's integrity.

The applicant sought an order for the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home under the Partition Act and Family Law Act due to significant mortgage and property tax arrears, and a civil action initiated by the bank.

The respondent opposed the sale, arguing it was premature and would prejudice her family law claims, including spousal support and equalization.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, finding the sale inevitable given the financial circumstances and the bank's actions, and that delaying it would cause further hardship.

The court also set terms for the sale process.

Emron Constantine applied for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of his s.11(b) Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time, as the total delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court found a total delay of 1689 days.

After deducting 210 days for COVID-19 related delays and 400 days for defence delay, the net delay was 1079 days (approximately 35.9 months), which still exceeded the 30-month ceiling.

The court determined that a significant portion of the delay (236 days) was due to a lack of judicial resources and judicial unavailability, which was not an exceptional circumstance attributable to the Crown or defence.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted, and the charges were stayed.

The Applicant sought to have a separation agreement made a final order, retroactive application of the order, findings of breach against the Respondent, and financial penalties.

The Respondent filed a cross-motion for costs.

The court granted the request to make the separation agreement a final order but denied retroactive application.

It found the Respondent breached communication and ancillary terms of the agreement but declined to impose financial penalties under Rule 1(8) as the agreement was not yet a court order.

The court also denied the Respondent's request for costs for a previous ex-parte motion.

Further submissions on a temporary enforcement order and costs for the current motion were directed.

This case involves a family law trial addressing unresolved issues between separated parents, Zarif Ahmad Shir Ahmad (Applicant) and Nazrin Mumtaz (Respondent), concerning child support (retroactive and prospective), Section 7 expenses, spousal support, international travel with their child, and child exchange locations.

The court determined the Applicant's income for child support purposes, dismissed the Respondent's request to impute income, and calculated child support arrears.

It clarified the sharing of Section 7 expenses, dismissing claims for ordinary extracurricular activities as extraordinary.

The court dismissed the Respondent's claim for retroactive spousal support, finding she achieved financial self-sufficiency.

Regarding travel, the court restricted travel to non-Hague Convention countries without mutual consent and required the Applicant to build a stronger relationship with the child before independent travel.

Child exchange locations were ordered to be in a public place.

Costs were not awarded as both parties were self-represented and had mixed success.

This trial addressed whether a temporary restraining order against the respondent, Mr. Visinoiu, should be made permanent under the Family Law Act and Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant, Ms. Grosu, alleged a history of physical and verbal abuse and expressed fear for her safety.

The respondent acknowledged one incident of assault but denied others and highlighted his compliance with previous court orders (bail, peace bond, temporary restraining order) and continued unsupervised parenting time with their daughter.

The court applied the objective and subjective test for restraining orders, balancing the applicant's fear against the respondent's compliance and the passage of time since the last incident.

The court found the respondent less credible but ultimately dismissed the application for a permanent restraining order, vacating the temporary order.

The court also declined to vary a previous parenting order.