Christina Sweet

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society brought a motion seeking production of hospital records for the respondent mother from January 1, 2016 to August 31, 2017.

The Society sought these records to investigate its theory that the mother was a victim of domestic violence perpetrated by the father.

The respondents opposed the motion, arguing it constituted a fishing expedition.

The court found the Society's request as originally framed was over-broad but granted a narrowed version of the motion, restricting production to hospital admission records where the mother presented with physical injuries or complaints about domestic conflict.

The accused, a United States citizen, sought leave to plead guilty and be sentenced through designated counsel pursuant to section 650.01(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, without physically returning to Canada.

The accused was charged with multiple offences related to a loaded firearm found in his vehicle at the Ambassador Bridge.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while section 650.01 provides discretion to allow designated counsel to appear for guilty pleas and sentencing, the serious nature of the offences, the possibility of a penitentiary sentence, and the necessity of an in-person plea inquiry to prevent miscarriage of justice outweighed the accused's claimed hardships of health issues, financial difficulty, and travel distance.

The Crown applied for an assessment order under section 672.12(3) of the Criminal Code to determine whether the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder at the time of committing uttering threat offences and breaches of probation.

The accused opposed the application, arguing the Crown had not met the statutory threshold of "reasonable grounds to doubt" criminal responsibility.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the evidence, including Dr. Komer's assessment and the accused's history of mental illness, pointed to a potential inability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions or that they were wrong as contemplated by section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with two counts of mischief to property and one count of assault.

The defence brought an application to find the complainant (the accused's spouse) incompetent to testify on the mischief charges.

The court held that while a spouse is generally incompetent to testify against the other spouse, exceptions exist where the charge involves the person, liberty, or health of the witness spouse.

The court found that the mischief charges, arising from separate incidents and not involving threats or violence to the spouse's person, liberty, or health, fell outside the exception.

The spouse was therefore found incompetent to testify on the mischief charges.