Dale Cox

The accused was charged with first degree murder in the death of his half-brother, which occurred on October 24, 2009.

The Crown alleged that the accused shot his brother with a shotgun following an argument about household cleanliness.

The central issues were whether the accused was not criminally responsible due to a mental disorder, whether he possessed the requisite intent for murder, and whether the killing was planned and deliberate.

The court found the accused suffered from a mental disorder (schizophrenia) but was not rendered incapable of appreciating the wrongfulness of his acts.

The court found the accused had the requisite intent for murder but was not satisfied the killing was planned and deliberate.

The accused was convicted of second degree murder rather than first degree murder.

The applicant mother brought a motion for temporary child support for four children based on the respondent father's previously estimated income of $120,000.

The father, who was in default of his financial disclosure obligations, argued support should be based on his current Employment Insurance income of $33,800.

The court found it inequitable to impose support based on the estimated income given the evidence of EI receipt, and ordered temporary child support based on the $33,800 income on a without prejudice basis, while ordering the father to provide outstanding financial disclosure.

The applicant was successful on a motion to relocate with the parties' children and sought costs of $7,000.00.

The respondent argued for no costs or a reduced amount of $1,500.00, citing the financial impact on his ability to exercise parenting time.

The court found the applicant's claimed costs excessive, disallowed fees for 'advising counsel', and reduced the preparation time.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, fixed at $3,144.00 plus HST.

The mother brought a motion for a temporary order permitting her to relocate with the parties' two children from Thunder Bay to Ottawa, and for sole decision-making responsibility.

The father opposed the relocation and sought primary care.

The court applied the relocation provisions of the Children's Law Reform Act, finding that the mother was the primary caregiver and that the children expressed a clear preference to move with her.

The court granted the temporary relocation order, adjusted the father's parenting time and child support, but dismissed the mother's request for sole decision-making responsibility.

The defendant, Aviva Insurance Company of Canada, brought a motion to stay the action on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing that Manitoba was the more appropriate forum.

The plaintiff, Altea Active Club Inc., opposed the motion.

The court found that while Ontario had jurisdiction simpliciter, Manitoba was clearly the more appropriate forum given the location of the plaintiff's business operations, the negotiation and administration of the insurance policy in Manitoba, the origin of the factual matters (Manitoba's COVID-19 shutdown order), and the application of Manitoba law to the insurance contract.

The motion to stay the action was granted.

The defendants brought separate motions to strike the plaintiffs' claim under Rule 21.

The plaintiffs requested an adjournment of one defendant's motion because they had a pending motion for leave to amend the statement of claim.

The court granted the adjournment, finding no prejudice to the defendants and noting that proceeding with a motion to strike while a motion to amend is pending would be inefficient.

Both motions to strike were adjourned to be heard together, with costs thrown away awarded to one defendant.

Detour Gold Corporation pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death following the death of Denis Millette, a 52-year-old millwright who died from acute cyanide intoxication via skin absorption on June 3, 2015.

The death resulted from the corporation's failure to implement proper safety protocols, including inadequate training on cyanide hazards, lack of proper personal protective equipment, absence of standard operating procedures for maintenance work on the InLine Leach Reactor, and failure to ensure emergency personnel were trained to respond to cyanide exposure.

The court imposed a restitution order of $805,333 to the victim's spouse and a monetary fine of $1.4 million, with total financial consequences exceeding $2.5 million.