David Brian Russell

The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code.

Over a six-month period, he surreptitiously observed and video recorded four female roommates using a bathroom in their shared residence through a hole in the wall.

The Crown and defence initially submitted for a 12-month conditional sentence order, but the court rejected this joint submission and imposed a custodial sentence of 42 days on each count (168 days total, approximately five and one-half months) to be served consecutively, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including counselling, no contact orders, and a 100-metre exclusion zone from the victims' residences, workplaces, and places of study.

This decision clarifies the authority to consent to medical treatment for a child temporarily placed with kin under a supervision order pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) and the Health Care Consent Act (HCCA).

The court held that while parents retain the right to make medical decisions if available, the kin caregiver who has day-to-day care and is most accessible to medical professionals may consent to treatment if the parents cannot be reached.

The decision distinguishes the authority of the Society when a child is in its temporary care versus when placed with kin, emphasizing the statutory hierarchy and the need for reasonable efforts to consult parents before kin consents.

The ruling provides a practical framework for consent in complex child protection scenarios involving temporary placements with kin.

This motion to change involved a father's request to vary a final order regarding child support and parenting time, and the mother's cross-motion to strike the father's pleadings and bar future motions due to non-compliance with prior orders.

The court dismissed the father's request to set aside the child support and costs order, citing his repeated non-disclosure and non-compliance.

However, the court stayed his motion to change child support, imposing conditions for lifting the stay, including payment towards outstanding costs.

The court set aside the suspension of the father's parenting time, finding it was made without proper notice, and ordered temporary supervised parenting time, emphasizing the child's right to a relationship with both parents despite serious criminal charges against the father.

The father initiated a motion to change, seeking modifications to prior consent orders regarding parenting.

The mother responded with claims for child support, including retroactive support from January 2015, and imputation of income to the father.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by failing to provide financial disclosure and not paying support for many years, despite a history of violence that caused the mother to withdraw previous support claims.

The court imputed income to the father for the years 2015-2020 and ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2015, deviating from the presumptive three-year retroactivity period due to the father's conduct and the mother's understandable delay.

Judge-alone criminal trial on a direct indictment alleging sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving three complainants who described events occurring while they were under 16.

The court reviewed the reasonable doubt standard, the W.(D.) framework, delayed and incremental disclosure principles, and cautions against myth-based reasoning in sexual offence cases.

The evidence relating to two complainants raised reliability concerns preventing findings beyond a reasonable doubt on sexual purpose or commission of the offences.

The court accepted the evidence of one complainant beyond a reasonable doubt and entered convictions for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching, while acquitting on the remaining two counts.

The parties separated after a 16-year marriage.

The mother, a high-income anesthesiologist, sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence of their two children.

The father, an engineer, sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time, as well as spousal support.

The court ordered joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final say on medical issues.

The father was granted regular parenting time, but the 14-year-old daughter's overnights were left to her discretion.

The father was awarded non-compensatory spousal support of $3,346 per month for a fixed duration, and the mother was ordered to pay 100% of the children's section 7 expenses, which was factored into the spousal support quantum.

Thomas Stephens was found guilty of multiple offences including possession of a stolen motor vehicle, a loaded antique firearm, and possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine.

The court considered the Crown's request for a 12-year sentence and the defence's request for 5 years.

The court also addressed the application of Gladue factors, finding insufficient information to link the offender's asserted Indigenous heritage to his moral culpability or appropriate sentencing procedures.

Applying the totality principle, the court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, reduced to 9.5 years with pre-sentence COVID credit, with specific sentences for each offence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms and drug trafficking offences.

The accused was arrested in a stolen vehicle following a report of erratic driving.

A search incident to arrest revealed a loaded handgun, approximately 130 grams of methamphetamine, and 50 grams of cocaine.

The accused was charged with multiple offences including possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine and methamphetamine, various firearm offences, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and breaches of probation and weapons prohibition orders.

The court granted directed verdicts on several firearm charges after determining that the handgun was an antique firearm manufactured prior to 1898, which falls outside the definition of "firearm" under certain sections of the Criminal Code.

The court found the accused guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking in both drugs, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, breaches of probation, breach of weapons prohibition, possession of a stolen motor vehicle, and careless use of a firearm.

During a family law trial regarding custody and access, the respondent father sought to introduce a surreptitious audio recording he made of a session with the court-appointed custody and access assessor.

The applicant mother opposed its admission on policy grounds.

The court held that while there are strong policy reasons against admitting surreptitious recordings in family law and of court-appointed assessors, the recording had high probative value to test the assessor's reliability and potential bias regarding a specific incident highlighted in her report.

The court admitted the recording for the limited purpose of cross-examining the assessor on that discrete incident.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding custody and access arrangements for two children.

The mother had ceased compliance with a Final Court Order following her criminal charge for assault and was living with an individual with a history of sexual assault convictions.

The Children's Aid Society was investigating.

The parties reached a temporary without prejudice agreement for alternating weekly custody during the school closure period, with the mother retaining primary residence upon school resumption.

The arrangement included supervised exchanges and conditions regarding contact with the individual in question.

The applicant brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at a residence, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was deficient and violated section 8 of the Charter.

The applicant contended there were insufficient grounds to establish the credibility and reliability of the confidential informant, inadequate corroboration, and material omissions in the ITO.

The court upheld the validity of the warrant, finding the confidential informant had a history of providing reliable information, the information was sufficiently corroborated through police investigation and surveillance, and the firearm information was compelling and recent enough to justify the warrant.

While the court found the omission regarding withdrawn charges was problematic, it determined this did not invalidate the warrant as there was compelling evidence independent of this omission.

The application was dismissed.

A costs decision following a trial judgment on a restraining order application.

The applicant mother sought costs of $11,734 on a full recovery basis after successfully obtaining a restraining order against the respondent father, though her request for a restraining order protecting her teenaged daughter was denied.

The respondent father argued costs should be limited to $750-$1,000.

The court awarded costs of $5,815.66, rejecting the mother's reliance on outdated case law regarding full recovery of costs and applying the proportionality and reasonableness principles established in Beaver v. Hill.

The court disallowed 10.3 hours of pre-trial work and allowed 17 hours of trial-related work at the counsel's reasonable hourly rate of $375.

The applicant mother sought a restraining order against the respondent father for herself and her 15-year-old daughter.

The parties had a history of domestic conflict, and the father sent numerous harassing and threatening text messages to the mother over a seven-month period.

The court found the mother had reasonable grounds to fear for her psychological safety based on the father's words and actions.

The court granted a three-year restraining order in favour of the mother but dismissed the claim regarding the daughter, as the messages directed at her did not rise to the same level of harassment.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a RIDE program stop, the accused provided breath samples indicating a BAC of 100 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breath test evidence on the grounds that police breached his Charter right to counsel by failing to inform him of available resources to contact counsel of choice, thereby unconstitutionally channeling him to duty counsel.

The court found a serious Charter breach and excluded the evidence, resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and having an impermissibly high blood alcohol concentration.

The Crown conceded insufficiency of evidence on the impairment charge.

The central issue was whether the defendant's arrest was made without objectively reasonable grounds and whether evidential breath sampling results should be excluded.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked an honestly-held subjective belief that was objectively reasonable, breaching the defendant's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court applied a section 24(2) analysis and excluded the breath samples, resulting in acquittal on both charges.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his request to reduce his child support obligations to zero.

The father argued he had quit his jobs due to mental illness and was now receiving ODSP.

The Divisional Court dismissed the father's motion to adduce fresh evidence from a psychiatrist, finding it would not have affected the result given the motion judge's factual findings that the father had voluntarily and strategically quit his jobs.

The Court upheld the motion judge's decision to impute income, finding no basis to interfere with the conclusion that there was no material change in circumstances.

The Crown appealed the sentence imposed on two young persons, arguing it was manifestly unfit.

The Crown also sought to establish judicial criteria for the grant of a reprimand by a youth court judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was legally available and that the sentencing judge properly considered all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offenders.

Both young persons had undertaken substantial rehabilitative measures independently.

The applicant sought retroactive variation of a separation agreement to recover unpaid spousal support.

The respondent had misrepresented his income as $80,000 annually when negotiating the agreement, but subsequently earned significantly more (averaging $182,012.50 annually from 2009-2014).

After signing the agreement, the respondent ceased support payments for over three years while earning substantial income, justifying his actions with false claims of financial hardship.

The court found a material change in circumstances and awarded retroactive spousal support of $102,787.75 (net of tax adjustments), payable within 60 days.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments regarding the applicant's alleged unclean hands and found his conduct throughout the proceedings to be blameworthy.

Mitchell Brooks was found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter in the death of his wife, Deena Brooks, by a jury.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of a loaded firearm in a domestic relationship, and mitigating factors such as his lack of prior record and remorse.

The court rejected depression as a mitigating factor and the defence's request for enhanced credit at 2:1 for lockdown time.

A global sentence of seven years was imposed, with enhanced pre-sentence custody credit at 1.5:1, resulting in a net sentence of two years, five months, and 23 days in penitentiary.

Ancillary orders for DNA, a lifetime weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of firearms were also made.

The appellant appealed his conviction for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and sought leave to appeal his sentence, arguing he was not accorded proper credit for pre-disposition custody.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal, finding the conviction was not unreasonable and the municipal address was not an essential element of the offence.

However, the sentence appeal was allowed, and the court applied a 1.5:1 credit ratio for pre-disposition custody, reducing the sentence by a further 300 days.