Colin Adams

The applicant sought to sever the divorce from corollary relief, allowing it to proceed uncontested.

The respondent opposed, arguing potential legal disadvantage if the applicant died intestate, and brought a cross-motion for extensive financial disclosure.

The court granted the severance, finding no legal disadvantage to the respondent, as claims under the Family Law Act and Succession Law Reform Act could continue, and the respondent's argument was speculative.

The court also found that reasonable arrangements for child support had been made.

Regarding disclosure, the court granted a more proportionate disclosure order, limiting the scope of the respondent's extensive request.

The applicant sought orders for the disbursement of net proceeds from the sale of the former family residence, including payment of sale-related expenses, responsibility for a mortgage penalty by the respondent, and equal division of remaining proceeds with costs from the respondent's share.

The respondent proposed an interim disbursement of $150,000 each, with the remainder held in trust.

The court ordered $100,000 to be held back from the net proceeds, with the balance divided equally, and awarded costs of the motion to be paid from the respondent's share.

The court noted that significant issues, including child support, spousal support, occupation rent, and Airbnb income accounting, remain unresolved and are scheduled for trial.

The York Region Children’s Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to find two children in need of protection and place them in extended society care with no parental access.

The parents opposed, seeking the children's return.

The court reviewed the extensive history of child protection involvement with the parents, including multiple previous summary judgments concerning their other children, and found overwhelming evidence that the parents had failed to address long-standing concerns regarding their parenting capacity, mental health, and cooperation with services.

The motion was granted, finding the children in need of protection and ordering extended society care with no parental access, while allowing sibling access at the Society's discretion.

The offender was found guilty of second degree murder after shooting an unarmed victim in the back as he fled a house party.

The Crown sought a parole ineligibility period of 15 to 17 years, while the defence sought 10 to 12 years.

The court found the use of a loaded firearm and shooting a fleeing victim to be significant aggravating factors.

The offender was sentenced to life imprisonment with no eligibility for parole for 16 years, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

In a second‑degree murder prosecution, the accused brought a motion to exclude proposed in‑dock identification evidence from a Crown witness.

The witness first identified the accused approximately ten and a half months after the homicide during testimony at another individual’s preliminary inquiry, after seeing the accused’s photograph in media reports following his arrest.

The identification arose through leading questions and occurred in circumstances suggesting contamination and suggestion.

The court held that the identification did not qualify as reliable recognition evidence and had no meaningful probative value while posing a substantial risk of prejudice.

Exercising its discretion, the court excluded the evidence from the jury.