Darnette Reid

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review for an accused found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with court orders.

The accused, diagnosed with Delusional Disorder, continues to experience fixed delusions regarding his ex-wife and lacks insight into his illness.

The Board accepted the joint submission and the attending psychiatrist's evidence that the accused remains a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of the Detention Order with added privileges for indirectly supervised passes and community living to facilitate gradual reintegration.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a multi-year custody and access dispute between a maternal aunt (Applicant) and a temporary caregiver (Respondent Rikka Vescio) following the child's mother's death.

Although the main custody issue settled by consent, the litigation continued for 15 months over access, complicated by the child's immigration status and the aunt's adoption plans in the U.S. The court found the maternal aunt to be the successful party in the overall litigation and awarded her $25,000 in costs, finding the respondent's conduct in prolonging the litigation unreasonable, despite her not formally claiming costs in her initial pleadings.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage.

The central issues at trial were the validity of a prenuptial 'Family Agreement', a claim for unjust enrichment regarding home renovations, ownership of the family dog, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the Family Agreement to be a valid and binding domestic contract, which provided a juristic reason defeating the applicant's unjust enrichment claim.

The court ordered the family dog to remain with the applicant and calculated the equalization payment owed by the applicant to the respondent at $43,547.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the primary residence of the parties' 11-year-old child from the respondent mother in Ontario to himself in British Columbia.

The father had moved to B.C. in 2017, which constituted a material change in circumstances.

The child expressed a consistent and genuine desire to live with her father during the school year and her mother during the summer.

A Voice of the Child report confirmed the child's wishes were independent and not the result of coaching.

The court found both parents capable and loving, but gave significant weight to the child's clear and realistic wishes given her age and maturity.

The motion was granted, and the child's primary residence was changed to the father.

The moving party father sought to vary a 2008 child support order, requesting a retroactive adjustment to 2009 when the children began living in a shared parenting arrangement, and reimbursement for overpayments.

The court found a material change in circumstances but limited the retroactive adjustment to three years prior to the motion due to the father's delay in pursuing the matter.

The court ordered the responding party mother to pay $6,000 in retroactive support and adjusted ongoing support obligations to reflect the children's attendance at post-secondary institutions away from home.

The mother's request to extend support obligations to second or third degrees was denied.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences arising from two separate incidents.

The first incident on November 9, 2014 involved uttering threats to his mother, breaching a probation order, threatening to damage property, and committing mischief by kicking and damaging a door.

The second incident on November 17, 2014 involved assaulting a police officer by spitting on him while in custody.

The officer was exposed to the accused's saliva, raising concerns about potential transmission of Hepatitis C. The court imposed a sentence of 24 months less a day in a provincial institution with a recommendation for placement at St. Lawrence Valley Correctional Treatment Centre, along with a three-year probation order with multiple conditions.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to add the estate of a deceased youth as a defendant, add the deceased rescuer through a litigation administrator as a plaintiff, increase damages, and have related actions tried together.

The court considered Rule 5.04(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the doctrine of special circumstances under the Trustee Act permitting addition of parties after expiry of the limitation period.

Applying authorities including Joseph v Paramount Canada’s Wonderland and Bikur Cholim Jewish Volunteer Services v Penna Estate, the court found special circumstances and no non‑compensable prejudice to the proposed defendant estate.

The court also found the presumption of prejudice rebutted given the existence of related proceedings and prior involvement of the estate in litigation arising from the same incident.

Leave to amend the claim and add the parties was granted and the related actions were ordered to be tried together.

A costs endorsement following a custody and access trial.

The father sought full recovery of costs from June 29, 2012 in the amount of $5,186.60, while the mother requested no costs be ordered.

The court granted custody to the father with extensive specified access to the mother.

The court awarded costs to the father as the successful party, but reduced the amount to $3,600 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules and the mother's limited financial circumstances.

The mother was permitted to repay the costs at $150 per month starting October 1, 2013.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts involving sexual offences against family members.

One offence involved repeated sexual assaults against the accused’s son over a six‑year period when the child was between the ages of 10 and 16.

The second offence involved sexual exploitation of the accused’s granddaughter when she was approximately 12 years old.

The court considered aggravating factors including trans‑generational abuse, breach of trust, multiple victims, and the accused’s prior criminal record, alongside mitigating factors such as advanced age, poor health, and the guilty plea.

Applying the principles of denunciation and general deterrence under the Criminal Code, the court imposed a custodial sentence.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death, dangerous driving causing death, impaired driving causing death, and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg causing death following a single motor vehicle rollover.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the driver.

The court heard evidence from civilian witnesses, police, and expert witnesses on collision reconstruction and occupant kinematics.

The court rejected the defence expert's opinion that the deceased was the driver and accepted the Crown's expert evidence, along with civilian testimony and physical evidence, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

A motion by the applicant mother seeking a declaration that the respondent is a parent of the oldest child for child support purposes, temporary custody of three children, temporary access restrictions, and temporary child support.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking temporary joint custody of his two biological children and expanded access.

The court found that the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the oldest child as a member of his family during cohabitation and therefore stands in the place of a parent.

Temporary custody was awarded to the mother.

The respondent was granted graduated access to all three children, with the option to include the oldest child.

Temporary child support was ordered for all three children based on an imputed income.