C. Gill

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim custody, child support, and spousal support, while the respondent father sought equal joint custody and timesharing.

The parties separated but remained in the matrimonial home until the mother moved out.

The court found the current access schedule unduly restrictive for the father and ordered interim interim parenting time for the father on alternate weekends and one overnight per week, along with child support based on imputed incomes.

The accused, charged with second-degree murder, brought a motion for a mistrial following the Crown's opening address.

The defence argued the Crown's remarks were inflammatory, included personal opinions, and improperly commented on the anticipated defence strategy, thereby undermining the accused's right to silence and reversing the burden of proof.

The court agreed, finding the Crown's characterization of the accused as an 'animal' and its pre-emptive arguments irreparably damaged the fairness of the trial.

The motion was granted and a mistrial was ordered.

The accused, Jermaine Gager, brought an application for a mistrial during his joint trial for first-degree murder with co-accused Corey Smelie.

The application was based on the closing address of counsel for the co-accused, who improperly commented on his client's failure to testify and suggested he was afraid of retribution from the moving party.

The court found the remarks were improper but concluded that the resulting prejudice was not irremediable.

The court dismissed the mistrial application, holding that a specific curative instruction to the jury would be sufficient to ensure trial fairness.

In a first-degree murder trial involving alleged street gang members, the Crown applied to qualify a police detective as an expert on Toronto street gangs.

The defence brought parallel applications seeking further disclosure of police records, including confidential informant databases, debriefing notes, training presentations, and wiretap intercepts from other investigations.

The court ordered redacted disclosure of the debriefing notes and presentations but denied access to the informant database and the massive wiretap files, finding the latter to be third-party records that did not meet the threshold for likely relevance.

The court qualified the detective as an expert but strictly limited the scope of his permissible opinion evidence to prevent him from usurping the jury's fact-finding function, particularly regarding whether specific individuals were gang members or whether a 'gang war' existed.