David Philip Hughes

Following a decision on a motion to change and a motion for withdrawal in child protection proceedings, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The Applicant Mother sought substantial indemnity costs against the Respondent Father, while the Father sought costs against both the Mother and the Children's Aid Society.

The court denied costs in the child protection proceedings, noting that costs in such matters require more than mere success.

However, the court awarded costs to the Applicant Mother for the motion to change in the divorce proceedings, as she was the substantially successful party.

The court fixed costs at an elevated partial indemnity rate of $28,319.46, sanctioning the Respondent Father for his unreasonable behaviour in filing voluminous and unnecessary materials.

The accused was found guilty of multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching against his 15-year-old cousin.

Applying the Kienapple principle, the court conditionally stayed several counts and proceeded to sentence the accused on five counts of sexual interference and one count of invitation to sexual touching.

The court considered the significant breach of trust, the vulnerability of the victim, and the devastating impact on her and her family as aggravating factors.

The accused was sentenced to a global term of 3.5 years in penitentiary, along with DNA, SOIRA, non-communication, and weapons prohibition orders.

The court tried an accused on multiple counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching arising from sexual activity with a 15-year-old cousin during the summer of 2012.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the complainant credible and reliable despite some confusion in chronology and terminology, and rejected the accused's evidence as evasive and implausible.

The court held that consent was legally irrelevant by virtue of s. 150.1 of the Criminal Code and found the sexual acts proven beyond a reasonable doubt on each count.

Findings of guilt were entered on all counts.

In a judge-alone criminal trial involving alleged sexual offences against a young complainant, the Crown sought admission of prior alleged misconduct involving another young female as similar fact evidence.

Applying the governing similar fact evidence framework, the court found substantial connectedness between the two relationships, including the complainants' vulnerability, the accused's position as a trusted older male, secrecy, grooming-like communications, and risky sexualized conduct.

The court held that the probative value on actus reus and the plausibility of a sexualized relationship outweighed the limited moral and reasoning prejudice in a judge-alone proceeding.

The application was granted and the similar fact evidence was admitted.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for relief after the respondent failed to pay spousal or child support and left the matrimonial home mortgages in default.

The applicant was completely successful on the motion.

In this costs endorsement, the court found that the respondent demonstrated bad faith by ignoring his financial obligations and failing to fulfill promises made in a prior agreement.

Applying the principles of reasonableness and the Family Law Rules, the court awarded the applicant costs on a partial indemnity basis up to February 5, 2015, and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, fixed at $10,000 payable immediately.

Following a conference call, the court issued a supplementary endorsement regarding the reinstatement of the plaintiffs' action.

The defendants argued that the conditions for reinstatement from a prior order had not been fulfilled, while the plaintiffs maintained they had.

The court was satisfied that the conditions were satisfactorily fulfilled and ordered the action reinstated, with no order as to costs.

In this pre-trial criminal ruling, the court considered whether a detained accused's videotaped police statement in a sexual offence prosecution was voluntary and whether police questioning breached the accused's right to remain silent under s. 7 of the Charter.

Applying the common law confessions rule and the right-to-silence analysis, the court held that the accused had been properly cautioned, had consulted counsel, understood his rights, and retained an operating mind throughout the interview.

The court found that the interrogating officer's persistence, tone, and tactical questioning did not amount to threats, oppression, or trickery sufficient to overbear the accused's will.

The statement was ruled voluntary and no Charter breach was established.

In a high‑conflict custody, access, and child support proceeding, the responding parent brought a motion to strike the other party’s application and materials due to repeated failures to comply with court orders for financial disclosure, costs, and child support.

The court confirmed that Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules permits sanctions such as striking pleadings for non‑compliance but emphasized that the remedy must be used sparingly, particularly where the best interests of a child are engaged.

Given that custody and parenting issues required a full evidentiary record, striking the pleadings would risk impairing the court’s ability to determine the child’s best interests.

Instead, the court imposed financial consequences, fixed arrears and costs, ordered payment efforts and questioning on financial disclosure, and maintained restrictions on further motions without leave.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection agency brought motions seeking disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to both parents and an order for a parenting assessment under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents consented to limited disclosure of records but opposed broader disclosure and objected to a parenting assessment before a care and custody hearing.

The court reviewed the statutory framework governing assessments and the criteria under Ontario Regulation 25/07.

Given the history of domestic violence, lack of cooperation with child protection authorities, and concerns regarding parenting insight and the children’s best interests, the court held that both the records disclosure and parenting assessment were necessary.

The motions were granted.

In a high-conflict custody and access dispute, both parents sought interim sole custody of their child, who had special needs associated with the autism spectrum.

The court considered an expert custody and access assessment recommending that one parent be granted final decision-making authority due to the parties’ extreme conflict and inability to communicate.

The court concluded that joint custody would expose the child to ongoing parental conflict and was not feasible.

Interim sole custody was granted to the mother, with a week‑on/week‑off parenting schedule designed to minimize contact between the parties.

The court also imputed income to the father due to inadequate financial disclosure and ordered interim child support.

Following the breakdown of a 16‑year marriage, the court addressed property division, child support, and spousal support.

The applicant sought unequal division of the matrimonial home and enforcement of several written agreements purporting to allocate the property to her.

The court held the agreements unenforceable due to lack of independent legal advice, uncertainty, and non‑compliance with statutory requirements, and found that equalization would not be unconscionable under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The respondent established entitlement to spousal support primarily on a needs basis due to a serious psychiatric condition limiting employability.

The court ordered ongoing and retroactive spousal support, modest retroactive child support, and equal division of the matrimonial home proceeds.

The appellant mother appealed a custody order that placed the child in the custody of the respondent father after she relocated out of the jurisdiction.

She argued the trial judge misapplied the law and failed to properly weigh the factors regarding the child's best interests.

She also sought to introduce fresh evidence regarding the father's association with an individual charged with drug offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's application of the best interests test or his weighing of the evidence.

The court also admitted the fresh evidence but concluded it did not warrant setting aside the custody order, noting the mother had not raised concerns with child care authorities and had elected not to return to the jurisdiction.