Clare Elizabeth Wensley Hopkins

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.

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.