C. Murphy

The Children and Family Services for York Region brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order finding two children in need of protection and placing them in extended society care with no access to the parents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, access.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' history of unaddressed mental health issues, lack of parenting skills, and failure to work with the Society.

The court granted the summary judgment, finding the children in need of protection and ordering extended society care with no access to the parents, but allowing sibling access.

The applicant was arrested at Pearson Airport after a border services officer suspected him of ingesting cocaine.

A subsequent hospital visit confirmed he had swallowed 52 pellets of cocaine.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application arguing his ss. 8 and 9 rights were violated and seeking exclusion of the evidence under s. 24(2).

The Crown conceded the officer lacked reasonable grounds for the arrest.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the officer's conduct was egregious, including misleading testimony and arresting the applicant as punishment for requesting counsel.

The court concluded the serious Charter-infringing conduct and its significant impact on the applicant outweighed society's interest in a trial on the merits, and excluded the evidence.

The accused applied for a Rowbotham order seeking state-funded counsel under s. 7 of the Charter after Legal Aid Ontario denied funding.

The court considered whether the accused met the three-part Rowbotham test: ineligibility for Legal Aid after exhausting appeals, indigence preventing retention of counsel, and risk that the absence of counsel would compromise the right to a fair trial.

Although the court accepted that Legal Aid appeals had been exhausted and that the complexity and seriousness of the case could compromise trial fairness without counsel, it found that the accused failed to establish indigence.

The court concluded that the accused had divested himself of assets through questionable non-arm’s-length property transfers and failed to provide corroborating financial documentation.

As a result, the application for state-funded counsel was dismissed.