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.

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.

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 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 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.

At a preliminary inquiry into a charge of first-degree murder, the Crown alleged that the accused intentionally shot his wife following marital discord and separation discussions.

The defence argued the shooting was accidental, occurring during a struggle over a firearm as the accused attempted suicide.

The court found sufficient evidence of intentional shooting based on the common sense inference from pointing and firing a loaded handgun at close range, forensic evidence regarding trigger force and muzzle proximity, circumstantial evidence of the victim's incapacity at the time of shooting, and evidence of animus.

The court also found some evidence of forcible confinement based on ante-mortem and peri-mortem injuries and the time gap between the victim's final text and the 911 call.

The accused was committed to trial for first-degree murder.