Clifford S. Nelson

The parties separated after a short marriage.

Prior to marriage, they signed a contract excluding the applicant's significant corporate assets from net family property but requiring him to pay child support for the respondent's two children from a previous relationship.

The applicant sought to set aside the child support provision, arguing he no longer stood in the place of a parent.

The court upheld the marriage contract, finding the applicant stood in loco parentis and that setting aside the provision would be unconscionable.

The court determined the applicant's income based on his spending habits rather than corporate profits, ordering child support for all three children and spousal support for five years.

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle while impaired by drug following a RIDE spot check on May 11, 2014.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial.

The court found that the accused displayed multiple indicia of impairment including poor balance, dilated pupils, slurred speech, confusion, unusual behavior, delayed responses, and signs of drowsiness.

Toxicological analysis revealed the presence of lorazepam and THC-COOH (the inactive metabolite of marijuana) in the accused's urine.

The accused admitted to smoking marijuana on the day of arrest and the day before.

A Drug Recognition Evaluation officer opined that the accused's ability to drive was impaired.

The court rejected the defence arguments that the Crown must prove a specific quantity of drugs in the accused's system at the time of driving, that tiredness must be negated as a cause of impairment, and that overwhelming signs of impairment are required.

The court found that the totality of the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to drive was impaired by drug consumption.

The defendants brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The charges arose from a stage collapse at a Radiohead concert in June 2012 that resulted in one death and injuries.

The defendants were charged in June 2013 with offences under the Ontario Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The trial commenced in November 2015 but was declared a mistrial in May 2017 when the presiding judge was appointed to the Superior Court.

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that the net delay far exceeded the presumptive ceiling of 18 months.

Although the Crown established certain discrete events and argued the case was complex, the court determined that even accounting for these exceptional circumstances, the delay remained unjustified.

The court granted the stay of proceedings for all defendants.

The respondent brought a motion to stay a family law proceeding, arguing that minutes of settlement constituted a binding arbitration agreement for child and spousal support issues.

The applicant opposed the motion, asserting that the minutes of settlement did not meet the mandatory formal requirements for family arbitration agreements under O. Reg. 134/07 of the Arbitration Act, 1991.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the minutes of settlement lacked the necessary formalities and that the parties' subsequent conduct indicated an understanding that a secondary, formal arbitration agreement was a condition precedent.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence from a toxicologist regarding the maintenance and operation of an Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device in an over 80 operation case.

The expert sought to raise a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the breath test results by analyzing historical maintenance records and COBRA data.

The court excluded the expert evidence on multiple grounds: the opinions were not logically relevant as they could not raise a reasonable doubt about the specific breath test results; the opinions were based on speculation and erroneous factual information; and the opinions constituted novel science lacking sufficient reliability and peer review.

The court emphasized that maintenance deficiencies must be directly linked to unreliable results, and that historical records cannot address the working status of the instrument at the time of the subject test.

Following the withdrawal of a spousal support application, the estate trustees of the deceased respondent sought a costs order jointly and severally against the applicant and her former lawyer.

The trustees alleged the proceeding was frivolous and vexatious and argued the lawyer had acted in conflict of interest and improperly initiated litigation despite knowing the claim had no chance of success.

The court considered Rules 12(3) and 24(9) of the Family Law Rules and the principles governing personal costs orders against counsel.

The court held the support claim was not clearly devoid of merit because statutory provisions permit setting aside domestic contracts in cases of unconscionability or lack of disclosure.

As the lawyer had acted on instructions and did not run up costs or abuse the court’s process, no personal costs order was warranted.

The offender, a pharmacy assistant with no criminal record, pleaded guilty to one count of theft over and three counts of trafficking in Schedule I substances (oxycodone, hydromorphone, and fentanyl).

She stole prescription drugs from her employer and provided them to an associate.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 4-5 years, while the defence sought a 2-year conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 30-month penitentiary sentence, finding that while significant mitigating factors existed, the serious nature of the drugs, the substantial quantities involved, the breach of trust, and the ongoing course of conduct warranted incarceration.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite the offender's remorse, family support, and efforts to address her addiction.

A worker employed by a small roofing company fell from a ladder while working on a residential roofing project and died from his injuries.

The company was convicted of failing to ensure a fall arrest system was in place and failing to notify the Ministry within 48 hours of the death.

The owner and operator was convicted of failing to ensure workers used fall arrest systems as a supervisor and furnishing false information to an inspector.

The court imposed jail sentences on the individual defendant and substantial fines on the corporate defendant, emphasizing the need for general deterrence in an industry with persistent fall-related injuries and fatalities.

In a family law proceeding, the applicant brought a motion for contempt against a lawyer who was not a party to the litigation but who held proceeds from the sale of the respondent’s business in trust.

A prior ex parte freezing order required the proceeds of sale to remain in trust pending further court order, except for payment to a secured creditor and legal fees.

Despite receiving the order and being warned not to breach it, the lawyer disbursed substantial funds to trade creditors, family members of the respondent, and others without seeking court approval.

The court held that the order was clear and unequivocal and that negotiations between counsel did not alter its binding effect.

Applying the contempt test, the court found that the lawyer knowingly and deliberately breached the order beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant mother brought a motion for financial disclosure from the respondent father dating back to 1995 in relation to a claim for retroactive child support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion to sever the issue of entitlement for the years 1995-2007, arguing that a trial should be held on entitlement before disclosure is ordered.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for severance, finding that financial disclosure is necessary to assess whether the respondent engaged in blameworthy conduct under the D.B.S. framework.

The court granted the applicant's motion for disclosure, ordering the respondent to produce financial information from 1995 onwards.

A family law trial concerning equalization of net family property following the separation of spouses.

The applicant, acting as executor of the deceased husband’s estate, sought inclusion of a Toronto condominium and certain financial accounts in the respondent wife’s net family property.

The court addressed whether the condominium qualified as a matrimonial home under s. 18 of the Family Law Act and whether inherited funds held in investment accounts were excluded property under s. 4(2).

The court held the condominium was not ordinarily occupied as a family residence and therefore was not a matrimonial home.

The court also found the investment account funds were traceable to an inheritance and were excluded property, while certain credit union accounts were included in the wife’s net family property.