Danielle Cunningham

The applicant, Simon Bridle, sought an O'Connor order for the production of third-party records (communications of Detective Inspector Patton of the Ontario Provincial Police) to support an allegation of improper preparation and communication by the police witness in prior pre-trial applications.

The court dismissed the application at Stage 1 of the O'Connor test, finding that the records were not likely relevant to any issue at trial, as DI Patton was not expected to testify at trial and her credibility was not a live issue.

The court also found the applicant's assertions of improper conduct to be speculative and based on misinterpretations of the cross-examination transcript.

The defendant was charged with Aggravated Sexual Assault and related offences.

He had been assessed for fitness to stand trial twice and found fit on both occasions (July 18 and September 27, 2019).

The defence brought an application to determine whether a "keep fit" order was necessary under section 672.29 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the defendant remained fit and that there was no evidence to displace the presumption of fitness.

The defendant's medical needs were being adequately met at the correctional facility, and he remained able to instruct counsel.

The court declined to issue a keep fit order and adjourned the matter to set trial dates.

The Children and Family Services for York Region (CFS) brought motions seeking temporary care and custody of four children (J.F.1, S.C., S.L.F., P.C.) from their mother, M.F. The father, R.C., brought a cross-motion for the children to remain in M.F.'s care with a gradual transition of S.C. and P.C. to his primary care, and for the removal of a family support worker.

The court dismissed both the CFS motions, finding that while parents had significant parenting deficits, the evidence did not meet the "required" test under s.64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act for the older children, nor the "reasonable grounds to believe harm" test under s.51(3) for the youngest child, provided appropriate supervision conditions were in place.

R.C.'s cross-motion was also dismissed, including his request to remove the family support worker due to lack of jurisdiction and merit.

The children remained in M.F.'s temporary care and custody under strict supervision conditions.

The applicant father sought costs after the respondent mother failed to attend trial and did not submit costs arguments despite being served with the decision and costs submissions.

The court awarded the father $8,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding the amount fair and reasonable given the father's success and the mother's failure to participate in the costs process.

The court emphasized that costs rules aim to indemnify successful litigants, encourage settlement, and discourage inappropriate litigant behavior, including ignoring court processes.