7 total
Accused acquitted of sexual offences because the Crown failed to prove a sexual purpose.
The accused, T.A., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against a 10-year-old complainant.
The trial proceeded judge-alone, with the Crown presenting evidence from the complainant and the defence calling the accused.
The court assessed the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies in her testimony.
Applying the principles of reasonable doubt and the W.(D.) analysis, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching was for a sexual purpose, which is an essential element for both charges.
Consequently, T.A. was acquitted on both counts.
The court ordered the child to remain in the temporary care of the maternal grandparents.
This endorsement concerns a temporary care hearing under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
The Children's Aid Society, the mother, the maternal grandparents, and the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to have the child remain in the care of the maternal grandparents.
The father sought to have the child placed in his care.
The court found that the maternal grandparents and mother had "charge of the child" immediately before the CAS intervention.
Applying the laddered approach under s. 94(2) of the CYFSA, and finding no protection concerns with the maternal grandparents, the court ordered the child to remain in their temporary care and custody.
The court also considered the least disruptive placement and the child's best interests, both of which supported placement with the maternal grandparents, despite the father's arguments and historical concerns regarding his conduct.
The court ordered two Métis children placed in extended society care with access, finding their parents' cognitive limitations and unresolved domestic violence rendered them unable to meet the children's high needs.
A status review application concerning four children of Métis heritage who were apprehended due to neglect, domestic violence, parental cognitive limitations, and transiency.
The parents sought return of the two older children to the mother's care subject to a supervision order, with the father residing separately.
The court found the children in continuing need of protection and determined that extended society care was in their best interests.
The court ordered the two older children placed in extended care with the culturally matched Métis foster family, with minimum three face-to-face visits annually with the parents as access holders.
Summary judgment Case dismissed
A child protection motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking an order for extended society care without access to either parent.
The child was placed in care due to the mother's inability to manage the child's behaviour.
The father had no contact with the child for seven years prior to the Society's involvement.
On the motion, the parties consented to an order placing the child in extended society care with access to the mother.
The only outstanding issue was whether access to the father should be ordered.
The court dismissed the motion with respect to paternal access, finding no genuine issue requiring trial and that such access would not be in the child's best interests.
The court denied a mother's request to relocate her child to Labrador, maintaining joint custody and equal time-sharing.
The applicant sought custody of the child, child support, guardianship over the child's property, and permission to relocate the child's residence from Kitchener, Ontario to Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The respondent opposed the relocation and sought custody with child support if relocation occurred.
The parties had previously entered into a mediation agreement providing for joint custody with equal time-sharing on a week-about basis.
The court determined that custody should remain joint with equal time-sharing, and denied the applicant's request to relocate the child, finding that such a move would be contrary to the child's best interests by dramatically reducing contact with the respondent father and disrupting the child's established relationships and community.
The accused was convicted of perjury for making false statements during a bail hearing.
The accused was charged with perjury for making false statements during a bail hearing on April 5, 2013.
The accused testified that his twin brother and a friend, rather than himself, had been operating his motor vehicle on four separate dates in 2012 when he was under a driving suspension.
The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person operating the vehicle on all four dates through consistent and credible police officer testimony.
The court found that the accused knew the statements were false and intended them to mislead the court regarding his credibility and willingness to comply with court orders.
The accused was convicted of perjury.
The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence for historical sexual assaults, holding that section 11(i) of the Charter entitled the accused to the benefit of the conditional sentencing regime available between the time of the offence and sentencing.
The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual assault against two young sisters occurring in 1986.
The offences involved inappropriate touching of the victims' genital areas and buttocks during social visits.
The court considered whether a conditional sentence was available given that such sentences were not available at the time of the offence (1986) or at the time of sentencing (2012), but were available between 1996 and 2007.
The court held that section 11(i) of the Charter entitled the accused to the benefit of the lesser punishment available during the intervening period.
The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for eight months and electronic monitoring, followed by one year of probation, finding that denunciation and deterrence could be adequately addressed through community-based sentencing given the accused's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and 25-year history without incident.
