D. DiGiuseppe

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society against the respondent mother was dismissed after a 10-day trial spread over four months.

The respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, alleging the Society acted unfairly by filing voluminous documents, failing to investigate fully, and advancing seven unproven statutory grounds.

The court found no exceptional circumstances warranting a costs award against the Society, concluding the Society acted appropriately within its statutory mandate, the grounds alleged were well-founded and consistently communicated, and the respondent's failure to address document admissibility prior to trial was not attributable to the Society's conduct.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of the right to counsel and the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure.

The defence argued that the accused was not advised of her right to consult French-speaking duty counsel and that breath samples were not taken as soon as practicable.

The court found no Charter breach, as the accused understood her rights in both French and English, indicated no language preference, and did not voice concerns about understanding duty counsel.

The court also found that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, with police acting reasonably throughout the detention and testing process.

The accused was found guilty.

The Crown sought a Dangerous Offender designation for the accused following his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated assault and breach of probation arising from a violent stabbing incident.

The court found the accused met the statutory test for Dangerous Offender status based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour involving weapons and violence while under court supervision, coupled with substance abuse and demonstrated inability to restrain behaviour.

However, the court imposed a determinate sentence of 33 months imprisonment (less presentence custody credit) followed by an 8-year Long-Term Supervision Order rather than an indeterminate sentence, finding that with intensive treatment, anti-alcohol medication, and structured supervision, there was a reasonable expectation that public safety could be adequately protected.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery involving an unprovoked, violent attack on the victim in which the accused and a co-accused beat the victim repeatedly, causing physical injury and significant emotional trauma.

The court imposed an eight-month custodial sentence followed by 12 months probation with conditions including abstinence from alcohol and drugs, anger management programming, restitution, and a curfew.

The court balanced mitigating factors including the accused's youth, lack of criminal record, early guilty plea, remorse, and supportive family background against the serious nature of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The Crown sought to introduce a video-recorded statement from a deceased witness (S.D.) as hearsay evidence under the principled approach to establish the truth of its contents in a sexual assault trial.

The witness had observed events at his residence where the alleged assault occurred.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine admissibility.

While the Crown established necessity due to the witness's death, the court found that reliability could not be established.

The court identified significant concerns including the 24-day delay between the events and the statement, the possibility of collusion between the witness and the complainant, uncertainty regarding the witness's sobriety at both the time of the events and when giving the statement, and most critically, the witness's strong motive to fabricate evidence due to his affection for the complainant and disdain for the accused.

The court concluded that without the ability to cross-examine the witness on these critical points, sufficient trust in the truth and accuracy of the statement could not be placed.

The accused was charged with indecent assault on a female between 1979 and 1981.

After the accused testified, he brought a motion to adduce evidence of an alternate suspect.

The defence sought to introduce evidence that another individual, K.N., who resided in the same neighbourhood and had demonstrated a propensity for sexually assaulting young girls in similar circumstances, could have committed the offence.

The court granted the application, finding that there was a sufficient connection between the alternate suspect and the offence based on opportunity and propensity to give the defence an air of reality.

The respondent brought a motion for contempt alleging that the applicant wrongfully denied Christmas access to their child in December 2011.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

The respondent, as the successful party, sought costs.

The court awarded costs of $1,500 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable within 90 days.

The court considered the respondent's earlier unreasonable conduct in denying access, the applicant's reasonable decision to bring the motion, and the respondent's subsequent reasonable conduct in presenting a comprehensive offer to settle.

No costs were awarded for the period prior to the offer to settle.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt of a prior custody order, alleging that the respondent failed to communicate effectively regarding issues affecting their child and denied Christmas access in 2011.

The respondent argued that the applicant failed to provide proper notice of his intention to exercise access, specifically failing to include contact information within the required 45-day notice period.

The court found that while the respondent's conduct was problematic and appeared designed to frustrate the applicant's access rights, on a strict reading of the order, the respondent was technically within her rights to deny access due to the late provision of contact information.

The contempt motion was dismissed.

The accused, an Aboriginal woman from Long Lake 58 First Nation, pleaded guilty to trafficking marijuana to three children aged 11 to 14 years.

She was bound by a conditional sentence order at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought six to nine months imprisonment; the defence sought a conditional sentence of six months.

The court imposed four months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation with conditions including abstinence from controlled substances and participation in rehabilitative programs.

A ten-year firearms prohibition was also imposed.

The court balanced the serious nature of trafficking to children with Gladue factors reflecting the accused's history of abuse, neglect, and systemic disadvantage.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The accused drove to a hospital following an ambulance after his wife suffered a serious leg injury at their rural residence.

The accused raised the common-law defence of necessity.

The court found that the defence failed on all three elements: there was no imminent peril once paramedics took charge of the wife's care, reasonable alternatives were available to the accused, and the harm of impaired driving outweighed the potential benefit of the accused's presence at the hospital.

The court found the accused guilty.

The offender was convicted after trial of aggravated assault and three counts of breach of probation arising from an unprovoked and vicious beating of a victim in February 2011, which resulted in severe traumatic brain injury and permanent cognitive and physical impairment.

The offender also pleaded guilty to common assault and two counts of breach of probation for assaulting another inmate while in custody in May 2011.

The sentencing court imposed a custodial sentence balancing denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation, with particular consideration given to the offender's Aboriginal status, youth, and background trauma, while recognizing the serious nature of the violent offences and the significant harm inflicted on the victims.