Danalyn J. MacKinnon

The appellant father appealed a trial decision granting Crown wardship of his child with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The father sought joint custody with the child's paternal aunt, or sole custody for the aunt to adopt the child.

The father argued the trial judge provided inadequate reasons, misapprehended evidence regarding his drug addiction recovery, and failed to consider the least intrusive course of action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's reasons were adequate, his credibility findings and preference for the court-appointed expert's evidence were reasonable, and he properly considered and rejected the aunt's plan of care as insufficient to protect the child.

The defendant pleaded guilty to stunt driving contrary to s. 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act after being detected driving 212 kph in a posted 90 kph zone on Highway 17.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a $3,000 fine and 30-day licence suspension.

The court rejected the joint submission as markedly out of line with public expectations and contrary to the public interest, finding the proposed sentence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court imposed a $7,000 fine and a maximum two-year driving suspension, emphasizing the egregious nature of the speeding (122 kph over the limit) on a dangerous two-lane highway and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The defendant was charged with trespassing contrary to section 2(1)(a)(i) of the Trespass to Property Act after being served with a notice of trespass and subsequently travelling on a road that crossed the Bergen property to access his landlocked parcel.

The Crown proved the essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found that the defendant had a limited statutory right to use the road as an access road under the Road Access Act, which confers on users of access roads a temporary right to travel to and from their properties without being considered trespassers until a court order closing the road is obtained.

The defendant was acquitted.

This family law trial addressed custody, access, child support, spousal support, and equalization of net family property following a contentious separation.

The court found significant credibility issues with both parents, particularly regarding their financial disclosures and conduct impacting the children's relationship with the father.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the mother, established a detailed access schedule, imputed income to both parents for support calculations, and ordered an equalization payment and post-separation credits in favour of the mother.

Mortgages unilaterally registered by the father against the matrimonial home were set aside, and both properties were ordered sold.

Lump sum spousal support was declined, but future spousal support was reserved.

Security for child support was ordered from the father's share of property sale proceeds.

The applicant father sought sole custody and permission to move the parties' three-year-old son to Spain.

At trial, he conceded primary residence to the respondent mother but sought joint decision-making and unsupervised access.

The court dismissed the father's claims for joint custody, finding he had made false, salacious allegations against the mother and posed a flight risk.

The mother was granted sole custody and primary residence in Ottawa.

The father was granted supervised access in Ottawa and ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $48,000.

A restraining order was also issued against the father.

This endorsement addresses the costs of two motions concerning section 7 expenses, where the respondent father was the moving party.

The respondent's claim and offer to settle significantly exceeded the ordered outcome.

While the applicant mother's offer was more reasonable, it was made late, and she had initially resisted contribution and failed to file a financial statement.

Considering these offsetting factors, the court awarded the applicant mother $900 in costs for the final preparation and argument of the second motion.

This motion addressed the reasonableness of the Applicant mother's refusals to contribute to specific s. 7 expenses for the parties' two children.

The Respondent father sought payment for past post-secondary and competitive hockey expenses, and a prospective order for s. 7 contributions.

The court strictly adhered to the scope of a prior order, limiting the review to expenses incurred up to March 10, 2016, and rejecting the father's attempt to expand the motion into a de facto motion to change.

The court ordered the mother to pay 40% of Ashley's post-secondary income shortfall ($760) and a reduced amount for Michael's hockey expenses ($2,022), after disallowing mileage and certain other items.

The mother's refusal to contribute to these allowed amounts was deemed unreasonable.

The father's request for a go-forward order was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship for two children, I.G. (13) and Z.C. (20 months), who had been in care beyond statutory timelines.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing for genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court, utilizing enhanced fact-finding powers under Family Law Rule 16(6.1), determined that both children were in need of protection due to the mother's untreated mental health, lack of cooperation with the Society, and inability to prioritize the children's needs.

Crown wardship was granted for both children.

Access for the mother to Z.C. was denied, while supervised access for I.G. was ordered, contingent on his welfare and desire.

The defendant, a helper trapper, was charged with using a non-certified trap (Woodstream Oneida Victor Conibear 120) for trapping pine marten, contrary to section 18(1)(a) of Regulation 667/98 under the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.

The defendant argued that responsibility for compliance with the regulation rested solely with the head trapper under section 10(2) of the regulation.

The court rejected this argument, finding that helper trappers are independently required to comply with all trapping regulations, including trap certification requirements.

The court convicted the defendant of the offence as a strict liability matter in a public welfare statute, noting the defendant presented no evidence of due diligence.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship for the purposes of adoption for two children.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the society's evidentiary record consisted largely of inadmissible hearsay.

The court agreed, finding that the society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from various professionals and individuals without establishing the threshold requirements of necessity and reliability.

The court rejected the society's argument that the Family Law Rules or the Supreme Court's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin relaxed the rules of evidence for summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

Concluding that it could not fairly resolve the dispute on the flawed record, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment and directed the matter to trial.

The Crown charged the defendant with knowingly giving a false statement to a conservation officer contrary to section 96(a) of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act.

The defendant was alleged to have falsely stated that no second bull moose was shot by members of the hunting party during opening weekend, when in fact Kevin Cain had shot a second bull moose unlawfully.

The trial turned on the credibility of the officer's account of the interview conducted at the defendant's home versus the defendant's account.

The court found reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant was asked about Kevin Cain or Rick Cain, and whether the defendant's responses were as alleged by the Crown.

The defendant was acquitted.

A trial concerning occupational health and safety violations arising from a serious mining accident at the Cochenour Mine in Red Lake, Ontario on August 4, 2013, where a worker suffered severe injuries when rocks fell onto a Mechanized Raise Climber.

The Crown charged the employer and two supervisors with multiple violations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulation 854.

The court convicted the corporate defendant on counts relating to failure to provide training, supervision, and job task observations, and convicted the supervisors on counts relating to failure to ensure use of safety equipment and supervision.

The court dismissed charges relating to geology, loading of drill holes with ANFO, and notification of appropriate officials.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order to implement a shared residential schedule and obtain joint decision-making for the parties' four children.

The existing order contained pre-conditions requiring that family tensions be reduced and the children not show outward signs of distress before moving to a shared schedule.

The court found that significant parental conflict remained and that the children continued to exhibit behavioural issues at school, meaning the pre-conditions were not met.

The father also failed to establish a material change in circumstances to justify joint decision-making, as the parents remained unable to communicate effectively.

The motion was largely dismissed, with minor amendments made to transition times.

The Children's Aid Society moved for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of two young children.

The parents were facing criminal charges based on allegations by an older sibling, which led to the children's apprehension.

The Society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from the older siblings and a foster parent.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that summary judgment was not appropriate given the evidentiary deficiencies, the parents' inability to cross-examine the adult complainant, and the upcoming criminal trial.

The court ordered peremptory trial dates to be scheduled near the expiration of the statutory timeline for the children to be in care.

The applicant moved for temporary spousal support, and the respondent moved for temporary child support and contribution to section 7 expenses.

The parties were married for 23 years, during which the applicant was financially dependent on the respondent, who has a high net worth.

The court imputed an annual income of $25,000 to the applicant due to his voluntary underemployment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay temporary spousal support of $4,600 per month and ordered the applicant to pay $304 per month in child support and $823 per month for section 7 expenses.

The defendant employer was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a fatal boat crash that killed two guests and injured an employee guide.

The Crown alleged the employer failed to maintain the boat's steering friction adjuster and failed to ensure the guide used an engine shut-off lanyard.

The court acquitted the defendant on both counts.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the loose steering was caused by a lack of maintenance or operator preference.

Furthermore, the court held that the requirement to use protective devices 'as prescribed' strictly means prescribed by regulation, and no such regulation existed for lanyards in the guiding industry.

The Crown prosecuted an individual officer and a corporation for violations of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act arising from fire code violations discovered at a resort property.

The corporation was charged with failing to comply with inspection orders, and the officer was charged with knowingly permitting the corporation to violate the fire code.

The court found that the inspection orders were defectively issued and served—directed to the individual rather than the corporation, and not properly served on the corporate entity.

Consequently, the corporation's charges were dismissed.

The officer's charges were also dismissed because the Crown failed to prove the requisite knowledge element beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the officer had demonstrated a cooperative approach to remedying the violations and had not acted with culpable knowledge or willful blindness.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle on a highway while his driver's licence was suspended, contrary to section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant had 21 prior convictions for the same offence and had accumulated $27,000 in unpaid fines.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission for 12 months probation with no fine or incarceration.

The court rejected the joint submission, finding it contrary to the public interest and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court imposed 60 days custody, a $2,000 fine (the statutory minimum for a subsequent offence), plus costs and surcharge, and 12 months probation with specific conditions including a prohibition on being in the driver's seat of any vehicle.

The defendant corporation was charged with six counts of operating commercial vehicles over the allowable weight during freeze-up periods under section 119(4) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt using weigh scale records from the Weyerhaeuser mill.

The defendant raised a due diligence defence, arguing it took reasonable steps to ensure compliance.

The court found the defendant guilty on all counts, holding that while the defendant implemented various measures (air gauges, driver training, a 105% target weight), these were insufficient given the known limitations of air gauges and the availability of alternative scales for verification.

The defendant was sentenced to minimum fines of $100 per count with six months to pay.

The appellant sought out-of-country funding for surgery to repair a medical condition, arguing that a delay in Ontario would cause irreversible tissue damage.

The Health Services Appeal and Review Board denied the request, and the appellant appealed to the Divisional Court.

The appellant argued the Board lost jurisdiction by reconstituting the hearing panel and ignored medical evidence regarding tissue damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness in the panel reconstitution and concluding the Board's decision on the medical evidence was reasonable.