Chozik

The appellant, an unlicensed practitioner of Traditional Chinese Medicine, appealed his conviction for sexual assault against a patient.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended text message evidence regarding the evolution of their relationship and applied uneven scrutiny to his testimony compared to the complainant's.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's credibility assessments were supported by the evidence, any misapprehension was not central to the conviction, and the scrutiny of the evidence was balanced and fair.

The applicant sought interim child support for her son from a previous relationship, interim spousal support, and orders regarding access exchanges.

The court found a prima facie case that the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the stepson and ordered him to pay full Guidelines child support for all three children.

The court also found the applicant entitled to interim spousal support based on need and compensatory grounds.

Due to conflict involving the respondent's mother, access exchanges were ordered to occur at a neutral location, with adjusted times for winter driving conditions.

The parties separated after the respondent mother left the family home with the children to a women's shelter, alleging the applicant father was abusive and a threat due to his rigid religious beliefs.

Following an 18-day trial, the court rejected the mother's allegations of abuse and neglect, finding the father to be a competent and involved parent.

The court declined to follow the recommendations of the Office of the Children's Lawyer, which had suggested sole custody for the mother and restricted access for the father.

Instead, the court ordered joint custody with equal parenting time on an alternating weekly schedule.

Due to the parties' inability to communicate, the court ordered parallel decision-making, granting the father authority over medical decisions and the mother authority over education.

Finally, the court imputed income to the underemployed father based on his historical earnings as a counsellor for the purpose of calculating child support.

The applicants, two firefighters charged with fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the date of the charges to the anticipated end of the trial was 35 months and one week.

After deducting three months of conceded defence delay, the net delay was 32 months and one week, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown argued that additional periods, including a two-month delay for a judicial pre-trial, a two-month adjournment of the preliminary inquiry, and a seven-week judicial reserve period, should be deducted as defence delay or exceptional circumstances.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding that the delays were not caused by the defence and that the Crown failed to take proactive steps to mitigate them.

The court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

The applicant father brought a motion for temporary custody and an order restricting the respondent mother's access to their surviving child to a supervised access centre, following the tragic drowning death of their other child while in the mother's care.

The mother, who was facing criminal charges related to the death, brought a cross-motion for increased supervised access in the community.

The court dismissed the father's motion to restrict access to a centre, finding no evidence that the mother posed a risk of harm while supervised by approved third parties.

The court ordered that the mother have supervised access in the community and daily video contact, emphasizing the child's best interests and the principle of maximum contact.

In a divorce application involving complex corporate structures, the applicant husband brought an interim motion seeking to compel the respondent wife to transfer her shares in several closely held corporations to him, or alternatively, to wind up the companies.

He also sought a restraining order.

The wife sought a sealing order for a video exhibit, and the husband sought to consolidate the wife's wrongful dismissal action with the family proceeding.

The court dismissed the husband's requests for share transfers and winding up, finding no jurisdiction under the Family Law Act prior to equalization and no oppression under the Business Corporations Act.

The restraining order was also dismissed.

The court granted the wife's request for a sealing order and the husband's request to transfer and hear the wrongful dismissal action together with the family proceeding.