Conlan

The mother sought to relocate with the parties' two-year-old child from Ontario to Pennsylvania.

The father opposed the move, arguing it would unduly hamper his relationship with his son.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended permitting the move.

The court rejected the OCL's recommendation, finding the mother had exaggerated the father's difficulties and had a history of thwarting access.

The court concluded the proposed move was not in the child's best interests as it would significantly compromise the father's access and relegate him to the role of a distant relative.

The offender pleaded guilty to 20 counts of arson, including multiple counts of arson with disregard for human life, following a crime spree in which he set numerous fires in residential and commercial areas while highly intoxicated.

The fires caused over $3.1 million in property damage and displaced numerous residents, though no one was seriously injured.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, his Aboriginal background (Gladue factors), and his struggles with substance abuse and potential fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The court sentenced the offender to a global term of 12 years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg/100ml.

He argued that the trial judge erred in dismissing his Charter applications under ss. 8, 9, and 10(b).

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court found that the trial judge erred in concluding the officer had reasonable suspicion to make the roadside breath demand, resulting in a s. 8 breach.

However, the court upheld the trial judge's findings that the formal breath demand at the station was valid and that the appellant's ambiguous response to the right to counsel did not constitute an invocation of that right.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the breath test evidence should not be excluded under s. 24(2) despite the s. 8 breach.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault and break and enter with intent to commit sexual assault arising from an alleged late-night intrusion into the complainant’s home.

The court held the only live issue was whether the alleged sexual contact and related events actually occurred, not consent.

After reviewing extensive inconsistencies, internal contradictions, conflicts with other accepted evidence, and serious reliability concerns in the complainant’s testimony, the court found her evidence could not be relied upon.

The Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted on both counts.

The defendants brought a motion to vacate a construction lien and dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff admitted the registered lien amount of $211,875 was incorrect and should have been approximately $167,000, relating to a subsequent oral contract rather than the initial formal contract pleaded.

The court held that the material misstatement in the lien amount could not be saved by section 6 of the Construction Lien Act.

The court vacated the lien and certificate of action but refused to strike the pleadings or dismiss the action, instead ordering the plaintiff to bring a motion to amend its statement of claim to assert the second contract for quantum meruit and breach of contract claims.

The accused pleaded guilty to arson with disregard for human life after pouring gasoline inside his home during a domestic altercation, causing a fire that destroyed the house and killed two pets.

The Crown sought a net sentence of 12 months in jail plus two years of probation, while the defence sought a net sentence of 3 to 6 months plus 18 months of probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, sentencing the accused to an effective term of three years' imprisonment (12 months net after 24 months of pre-sentence custody credit), followed by two years of probation and a restitution order of $92,153.12.

The accused brought a pretrial Charter application alleging violations of his rights under ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) following a traffic stop that led to the discovery of a prohibited weapon and a large quantity of narcotics.

The court rejected the accused's version of events, preferring the testimony of the police officers.

The court found no Charter violations, concluding that the brief delay in informing the accused of the reason for the stop was justified, the detention and frisk-search were necessary for officer safety, and the vehicle search was a lawful search incidental to arrest.

The application to exclude evidence under s. 24(2) was dismissed.

The offender was convicted after trial of trafficking fentanyl and pleaded guilty to possession of cannabis and two counts of unauthorized possession of firearms.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years.

The court found exceptional circumstances, including the offender's severe health issues, rehabilitation efforts, and the parity principle, given that the co-adjudicator received a significantly lighter sentence.

The court imposed a reformatory sentence of 15 months in custody followed by two years of probation.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault after striking the victim in the face with a beer glass during an altercation at a bar.

The victim, who was highly intoxicated, had aggressively lunged at and pushed the accused.

The accused reacted instinctively by striking the victim once while holding the glass.

The court found that the accused acted in self-defence, as he reasonably believed force was being used against him, acted to protect himself, and his response was proportional given the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference after having sexual intercourse with the 14-year-old daughter of his bail surety, resulting in her pregnancy.

The court considered the offender's Gladue factors, his difficult upbringing, and his guilty plea as mitigating factors, weighed against the severe breach of trust and the victim's young age.

The court sentenced the offender to 3.5 years in custody, less pre-sentence credit, resulting in a net sentence of 31.5 months in a federal penitentiary, along with ancillary orders.

Following a trial regarding failed real estate transactions where the plaintiff achieved mixed success, the parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought full indemnity costs of over $55,000, while the defendant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court awarded the plaintiff discounted partial indemnity costs of $25,000, factoring in the mixed success at trial and the defendant's unreasonable conduct as a landlord.

The accused killed the victim while suffering from a severe mental disorder.

The Crown and defence presented a joint submission, supported by two comprehensive forensic psychiatric reports, that the accused was incapable of assessing the moral wrongfulness of his actions due to psychosis and delusions.

The court accepted the joint submission, rendered a special verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder, and referred the disposition to the Ontario Review Board.

The appellant appealed a finding of not criminally responsible (NCR) for possession of cocaine and breach of recognizance.

He argued that his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to oppose the Crown's application for an NCR assessment order and by failing to withdraw from the case.

He also argued that the application judge erred in making the assessment order.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding no miscarriage of justice or incompetence by trial counsel, and concluding that the assessment order was properly made as the appellant had repeatedly placed his mental state in issue through his bizarre statements in court.

The respondents brought a motion to stay an application challenging the validity of two wills, pending a determination of the applicant's paternity.

The respondents argued the applicant was not the deceased's half-brother and therefore lacked standing.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondents could challenge the applicant's paternity within the application itself, and that staying the proceedings would cause undue delay and injustice to the parties.

The offender, a 37-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of simple possession of cocaine (29.4 grams), methamphetamine, and codeine.

The Crown sought 6 to 8 months in custody, while the defence requested a suspended sentence and probation.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence due to the quantity of cocaine, but also considered the offender's lack of a criminal record, cooperation with police, and family circumstances.

The court sentenced the offender to 90 days in custody for the cocaine possession, and suspended sentences with 12 months of probation for the other two offences.

Judge-alone criminal trial concerning thirteen historical sexual offence counts alleged against two child complainants in a family setting.

The court reviewed the essential elements of sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and sexual assault under ss. 151, 152, and 271 of the Criminal Code, and applied the reasonable doubt standard count by count.

The judge found the accused's denials untruthful and found the second complainant credible and reliable, but concluded the first complainant's evidence could not safely be relied upon.

The accused was acquitted on all counts relating to the first complainant and convicted on all counts relating to the second complainant.

The accused was charged with multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking after a police officer approached his parked vehicle, detained him, and discovered drugs.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention, denial of the right to counsel, and unreasonable search.

The court found that the initial detention was arbitrary and based on mere suspicion, violating section 9.

The court also found a violation of section 10(b) because the accused was not informed of his right to counsel without delay.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the drug evidence under section 24(2).

The accused were charged with possession of methamphetamine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and simple possession of hydromorphone, following a police raid on a residence.

The court found the male accused guilty of possessing the methamphetamine and fentanyl, as circumstantial evidence linked him to the drugs found in the bathroom.

The female accused was acquitted of those charges but found guilty of simple possession of hydromorphone based on her admission to police regarding spoons containing morphine found in a bedroom.

The accused were charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of marihuana and MDMA, following a police search of an apartment.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including police surveillance of the accused entering the building and their presence in the apartment when the search warrant was executed.

The court applied the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence and found that the evidence reasonably supported inferences other than guilt, specifically that the accused lacked knowledge and control of the drugs.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The applicant mother and respondent father separated, and the mother remained in the jointly owned matrimonial home with their two children.

The mother brought a motion for temporary exclusive possession of the home, while the father brought a cross-motion for the immediate sale of the home and occupation rent.

The court granted the mother's motion for exclusive possession, finding it was in the best interests of the children and that an immediate sale would prejudice the mother's claims at trial.

The father's motion for sale and occupation rent was dismissed, as the carrying costs paid by the mother roughly equalled the requested rent.