Deena Baltman

The offender was convicted of manslaughter for the starvation death of his 21-month-old daughter, who was in his sole care.

The offender absconded prior to the sentencing hearing, and the court proceeded in his absence pursuant to section 475(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code.

Finding that the prolonged and deliberate withholding of food and water constituted extreme child abuse by a parent in a position of trust, the court sentenced the offender to 15 years' imprisonment.

The appellant appealed sentence following conviction for sexual assault arising from unwanted touching and explicit sexual comments made to a bank employee during a client meeting.

He argued the sentencing judge mischaracterized the assault, improperly discounted remorse because it was expressed only at sentencing, and failed to give sufficient weight to personal mitigating factors in refusing a conditional discharge.

The appeal court held that the sentencing judge accurately described the evidence, was entitled to treat late remorse as carrying less mitigating weight, and adequately considered the appellant's health, family support, employment history, lack of record, and collateral consequences.

The suspended sentence with 12 months' probation was within the acceptable range and was not demonstrably unfit.

The accused, the sole caregiver for his 21-month-old daughter, was charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death after she died of severe malnutrition and dehydration.

The accused conceded he failed to provide the necessaries of life but argued he was incapacitated by a head injury sustained eight days prior to her death.

The court rejected this defence, finding no evidence of incapacity and noting the child's deterioration would have occurred over weeks.

The court found the accused's failure to provide nourishment was a marked and substantial departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent parent.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The accused, charged with manslaughter and criminal negligence causing the death of his 21-month-old daughter, brought a pre-trial motion to exclude two statements he made to police.

He alleged breaches of his rights under ss. 9, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter, and argued the statements were not voluntary.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the accused understood his jeopardy, was not arbitrarily detained, and was provided reasonable opportunities to consult with counsel.

The court also found the statements were voluntary, as the accused possessed an operating mind and the conditions were not oppressive.

The statements were ruled admissible.

The Crown sought to call four expert witnesses in a trial for manslaughter and criminal negligence causing death of a 21-month-old child.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the experts based on their independence and impartiality.

The court admitted the evidence of the coroner, forensic pathologist, and neuropathologist, finding them independent.

However, the court excluded the evidence of the paediatric nutritionist, who testified he would never work for the defence and viewed defence experts as 'hired guns', demonstrating an inherent bias in favour of the Crown.

The Crown applied under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code for its witnesses to testify via videoconference at a manslaughter trial due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused opposed the application and sought an adjournment, arguing that a fair trial required in-person testimony.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that virtual testimony with appropriate safeguards accommodated both public health interests and the accused's right to a fair trial.

The court dismissed the accused's adjournment requests, noting the trial had already been delayed multiple times and the proposed appeal of the virtual testimony ruling was highly speculative.

The defendant broadcaster brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiffs' defamation action arising from a satirical television program broadcast in Pakistan and rebroadcast online.

The program allegedly accused the plaintiffs of engaging in immigration fraud related to a Canada-Pakistan Trade Fair, which the plaintiffs claim caused artists' visas to be denied and forced the cancellation of a concert.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the broadcast was defamatory, whether the action was barred by the Libel and Slander Act given the technical nature of the internet broadcasts, and whether the broadcast caused the alleged damages.

The court also declined to dismiss the action for delay.

The Durham Regional Police Service (DRPS) sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Civilian Police Commission directing the Chief of Police to withdraw disciplinary charges against a police officer.

The Commission found that the Chief failed to comply with the mandatory investigation and reporting requirements under section 76 of the Police Services Act before initiating a disciplinary hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the Commission did not breach procedural fairness, there was no reasonable apprehension of bias, and the Commission's decision was reasonable.

The applicant, a minor hockey coach, sought judicial review of a Children's Aid Society (CAS) decision verifying that six children were at risk of emotional harm due to his coaching conduct.

The Divisional Court granted the application and set aside the CAS decision.

The Court found that the CAS breached procedural fairness by failing to provide the applicant with adequate notice of the specific allegations and the legal standard being applied.

Furthermore, the CAS's investigation was inadequate and its decision was unreasonable, as it failed to properly apply the legislative criteria for emotional harm and lacked a logical, reasoned basis for its conclusions regarding each child.

The applicant father brought a motion for access in a longstanding family law dispute involving allegations of parental alienation.

The court found that the respondent mother had been wrongfully withholding access and obstructing the reunification process with the court-appointed therapist.

The court ordered both parties to continue attending co-parenting sessions, follow the therapist's recommendations, and directed that no further motions be brought without leave.

The respondent was ordered to pay $7,500 in costs due to her refusal to work toward reunification.

The respondent (moving party) brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicants (responding parties) in the agreed amount of $5,000.

The appellant father appealed a motion judge's decision dismissing his application under the Hague Convention for the return of his child to the United States.

The parties separated while living in Massachusetts, and the mother moved to Ontario while pregnant.

The child was born in Ontario and remained there.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the motion judge correctly applied the hybrid approach to determine the child's habitual residence was Ontario, as the child had never been to the United States.

The court also upheld the finding that Ontario had jurisdiction under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Kimmel J. dated March 20, 2020.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the fixed amount of $4,891.66.

The moving party sought leave to appeal three orders of the motion judge regarding venue, surveillance, and costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The tenants appealed two orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including a consent eviction order and a refusal to extend the time to pay rent arrears.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's orders and noting that the appeal was filed out of time.

The Court concluded that the appeal was an abuse of process intended solely to obtain an automatic stay of eviction and allow the tenants to remain in the property without paying rent.

This case involved an alleged sexual assault.

The complainant's testimony was found to be highly unreliable due to profound inconsistencies with medical evidence and prior statements, and a lack of corroborative evidence.

The court also found contradictions from another Crown witness whose testimony was deemed credible and exculpatory.

The charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

The applicant father brought a motion regarding access to the parties' 8-year-old daughter.

Previous orders had found the respondent mother wrongfully withheld access and directed the parties to engage a parenting mediator.

Following reports that the mother was the major obstacle to reunification and that recent visits were marked by the child's violent behaviour, the father sought to suspend the access schedule until the parties received support from a psychotherapist.

The court ordered the parties to immediately engage the psychotherapist, with costs apportioned by income, and suspended the access schedule pending further recommendations.

The mother was ordered to pay $2,500 in costs for unnecessarily prolonging the litigation.

The plaintiff moved to strike the jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action due to delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant did not oppose the relief but requested a conditional order.

The court applied the 'middle ground' approach, conditionally striking the jury notice so the trial could proceed as a judge-alone trial, but allowing the jury notice to be automatically reinstated if jury trials resume in Peel Region by the time the case is called.

Following their separation, the parties brought a motion to determine ownership and possession of their two dogs, Jazz and Jetta.

The court rejected the traditional, narrow approach to pet ownership that focuses solely on who paid the purchase price, adopting instead a broader, contemporary approach that considers the full context of the parties' relationship with the animals, including care and maintenance.

Finding that both parties were significantly vested in the dogs and had contributed equally to their upkeep, the court concluded the dogs were jointly owned.

As the parties could not share the dogs, the court divided them, awarding Jazz to the respondent and Jetta to the applicant.

The applicant father sought to increase access to his 8-year-old daughter following a period of estrangement and resistance.

The court reviewed the joint recommendations of the family's mediator and the child's psychotherapist, who noted the child's severe anxiety and enmeshment with the respondent mother.

The court ordered a graduated access schedule leading to full weekend visits, along with behavioral expectations for the child and mandatory co-parenting and individual therapies for the parents.