Croll

The accused was charged with sexual assault, two counts of assault, and uttering threats against his common law spouse and their son.

The Crown sought to admit cross-count evidence of discreditable conduct to provide context to the abusive relationship and explain the delay in reporting.

The court admitted the evidence, finding its probative value outweighed any prejudice.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible and found the evidence of the spouse, children, and an independent witness to be reliable and consistent.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The applicants were stopped for a traffic violation and subsequently investigated for a stolen vehicle.

The police arrested the driver for driving under suspension, detained the passenger, and searched the vehicle based on the smell of burnt marijuana and the presence of two roaches, locating a loaded handgun and drugs.

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and delay in providing rights to counsel, as the officers lacked reasonable grounds for the stolen vehicle investigation and the vehicle search.

The evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon after striking her nine-year-old son with a broomstick.

At sentencing, the Crown and defence jointly proposed an absolute discharge and a 12-month peace bond.

The sentencing judge rejected the joint submission and imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge erred by applying a 'fitness' test rather than the stringent 'public interest' test required by Anthony-Cook.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to an absolute discharge and a peace bond, as the joint submission was not contrary to the public interest.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault and conspiracy to commit assault following a severe beating of a fellow inmate at a detention centre.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of an unsavoury witness (a former cellmate) and video surveillance.

The court found the witness's evidence unreliable due to his history of deceit and self-interest, and concluded that the video evidence was equivocal and supported other reasonable inferences besides guilt.

The accused was found not guilty on both counts.

The father appealed an Ontario Court of Justice order granting the mother sole custody and primary residence of their child, as well as an $8,000 costs award.

The father argued the hearing judge erred on the facts, prejudiced him during cross-examination, improperly proceeded with a focused hearing, and erred by not appointing the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no misapprehension of evidence, no prejudice in the judge's conduct, and that the father failed to object to the focused hearing or request OCL involvement in a timely manner.

The costs award was also upheld, and the father was ordered to pay $9,500 in costs for the appeal.

The parties met online, married in China, and the respondent sponsored the applicant to come to Canada.

The marriage broke down shortly after her arrival.

The court determined the date of separation based on credibility findings, preferring the respondent's evidence.

The applicant's claim for equalization was dismissed as the respondent's net family property was zero.

The court awarded non-compensatory spousal support of $900 per month for nine months, considering the short duration of the marriage, the immigration sponsorship agreement, and the applicant's ability to work.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion to set aside the transfer of a property by her former husband to three tenants, alleging it was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat her family law claims.

The transfer occurred shortly before trial and in violation of a court order prohibiting the sale.

The court found numerous 'badges of fraud' and rejected the purchasers' claims that they bought the property in good faith without notice.

The court granted summary judgment, setting aside the transfer and vesting the property in the applicant.

The applicant sought sole custody, child support, and an equalization payment following a 15-year marriage.

The respondent, who had not paid child support since separation and was found in contempt of court for selling a property in violation of a court order, sought sole or joint custody of one child and spousal support.

The court granted the applicant sole custody, ordered retroactive and prospective child support, and calculated the equalization payment and other reimbursements owed by the respondent.

To satisfy the total amount owed of $441,378.68, the court ordered the respondent's property, the transfer of which was set aside in a companion decision, to be vested in the applicant.

The parties separated in 2006, and the applicant father has had sole custody of their three children since 2007.

The applicant sought an unequal division of net family property, retroactive and ongoing child support, and the transfer of the respondent's interest in the matrimonial home.

The respondent sought spousal support.

The court found that an equal division of net family property would be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act due to the respondent's reckless depletion of property by ignoring debts that resulted in liens on the home, and the applicant's disproportionate assumption of debts to support the family.

The court ordered retroactive child support, to be satisfied by transferring the respondent's remaining equity in the home to the applicant.

Ongoing child support was ordered at a reduced amount, and the respondent's claim for spousal support was dismissed as child support takes priority and the applicant lacked the means to pay.

The accused was found guilty of multiple offences, including aggravated assault, after violently shaking his infant daughter, causing permanent and severe brain damage.

He also assaulted his girlfriend and the infant in a separate incident weeks prior.

The court rejected the application of the Kienapple principle to the assault and choking charges.

The accused was sentenced to a total of 8 years and 4 months imprisonment, with a 1.25 to 1 credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in a net sentence of 5 years going forward.