Clare Elizabeth Wensley Hopkins

The applicant husband brought a motion for the immediate interim sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home.

The respondent wife opposed the sale and brought a cross-motion to amend her pleadings to seek a vesting order, citing the husband's significant spousal support arrears.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding that an interim sale would prejudice the wife's claims at the imminent trial, particularly given the outstanding disclosure and the disputed validity of a $500,000 mortgage held by the husband's mother.

The wife's motion to amend her pleadings was granted.

Both parents brought competing motions regarding the father's parenting time with their three children.

The mother had unilaterally suspended the father's unsupervised parenting time after allegations that he interrogated the children about the mother's activities and made inappropriate racial, religious, and gender-biased comments.

The court found some merit to the allegations based on evidence from multiple sources including a children's counsellor, supervised visit notes, and a children's aid investigation, but held that the mother was not justified in unilaterally suspending court-ordered parenting time absent immediate danger to the children.

The court restored unsupervised parenting time under the existing order, denied the mother's request for supervised access, ordered the father to enroll in the Caring Dads program, and denied make-up parenting time.

The accused, G.M., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving his granddaughter, S.M., for incidents occurring between 2014 and 2019.

The court assessed S.M.'s credibility and the reliability of her testimony, particularly regarding inconsistencies and delayed/incremental disclosure of abuse.

The court found G.M. guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for one incident (the November 2019 basement incident) but acquitted him on two other alleged incidents (patio and bedroom incidents) due to insufficient reliability of the evidence.

The conviction for sexual assault was conditionally stayed under R. v. Kienapple.

The defendant, M.G., was charged with sexual assault stemming from an alleged incident on a first date in 2001, reported by the complainant, D.A., in 2016.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of D.A.'s testimony, finding significant inconsistencies between her account and that of a Crown witness, C.I., regarding the details of the alleged assault and prior conversations.

The court also considered M.G.'s exculpatory testimony, finding him to be a credible witness doing his best to recall events from nineteen years prior.

Ultimately, the court found that the Crown had not proven the sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit three accused to stand trial for first degree murder in relation to a stabbing at an after-hours club.

The Crown advanced two routes to first degree murder: planning and deliberation, and constructive first degree murder during an unlawful confinement.

The court reviewed the evidence, including witness testimony and surveillance video, and found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury, acting reasonably, could convict each of the accused of first degree murder under both theories.

All three accused were ordered to stand trial for first degree murder.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified contrary to section 259(4) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the accused was the driver of a Chrysler 300 vehicle observed on Upper Gage Avenue in Hamilton on March 23, 2018.

The accused admitted he was a disqualified driver but denied operating the vehicle, claiming his friend Richard Bound was the driver.

Two police officers testified they observed the accused driving the vehicle, while the accused and his friend testified the friend was driving.

The court found significant credibility issues with the police evidence, including inconsistencies in their testimony, evasiveness during cross-examination, and implausible explanations regarding the vehicle search and decision not to tow it.

The court acquitted the accused, finding reasonable doubt as to who was driving the vehicle.

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample and the imposition of a victim fine surcharge.

He argued that the police lacked reasonable grounds for the breath demand and that a police officer's forcible attempt to remove his wedding ring constituted a Charter breach, rendered the demand unlawful, and provided a reasonable excuse for his refusal.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the conviction appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's conclusions that reasonable grounds existed, no section 7 Charter breach occurred, and the ring incident did not cause the refusal.

The sentence appeal was granted on consent, setting aside the victim fine surcharge.

The accused was found passed out in his vehicle in a restaurant drive-thru and was charged with impaired care or control and refusing a breath demand.

The court acquitted the accused of the refusal charge because the Crown failed to prove the arresting officer made a valid demand, as there was no evidence of the exact words used, and the breath technician's subsequent demand was not made 'as soon as practicable' due to an unexplained 41-minute delay.

However, the court convicted the accused of impaired care or control based on the totality of the evidence, including his unresponsiveness, slurred speech, unsteadiness, and the strong odour of alcohol.