D. Fitzpatrick

The applicant sought child and spousal support following a 22-month cohabitation and marriage.

The central issue was whether the respondent stood in the place of a parent to the applicant's two children from a previous relationship, one of whom has severe autism.

Applying the Chartier factors, the court found the respondent demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as his own.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child and spousal support for a fixed three-year term, reflecting the short duration of the relationship and the parties' reasonable expectations.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including obtaining sexual services for consideration, assault, sexual assault, and uttering threats, against a sex trade worker.

The incidents allegedly occurred during several meetings at hotels in Hamilton, Oakville, Niagara Falls, and Kitchener.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her admitted heavy alcohol consumption during the material times, limited details, and inconsistencies.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court was left with a reasonable doubt on all charges and acquitted the accused.

Following a family law trial with divided success regarding child support and section 7 expenses, the applicant sought costs of $82,001.61.

The respondent argued for no costs.

The court found that neither party's offers to settle triggered cost consequences.

However, the court awarded the applicant $20,000 in costs under Rule 24(7) of the Family Law Rules due to the respondent's lack of preparation and late disclosure, which significantly prolonged the trial.

The applicant father sought to vary child support and section 7 expenses under a shared parenting arrangement, arguing that the incomes of both self-employed parties needed to be determined.

The court dismissed the variation application, finding that neither party provided sufficient or reliable financial evidence, such as expert income analyses or property appraisals, to determine their true incomes from their complex corporate real estate holdings.

However, the court granted the applicant's claims for the respondent's unpaid share of section 7 expenses, repayment of RESP funds, transfer of a time share property, and costs for failing to exchange family photographs as required by their prior Minutes of Settlement.

Following a two-week jury trial where the plaintiff was awarded $81,658.83 net, the court determined costs.

The defendant argued that its $100,000 settlement offer engaged Rule 49 consequences.

The court applied the principles from Rooney v. Graham, finding that when the costs terms of the offer were factored in, the judgment achieved was more favourable than the offer.

Furthermore, the offer was not served at least seven days before the hearing as required by Rule 49.

The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs throughout.

The applicant brought a motion at the start of trial seeking to strike the respondent’s pleadings due to his failure to comply with a prior order requiring monthly spousal support payments.

The respondent admitted unilaterally reducing the ordered payments and accumulating arrears of $10,032 but claimed an inability to pay due to business difficulties.

The court found the respondent provided no reliable evidence of inability to pay and noted a history of non‑compliance with support and disclosure orders.

While recognizing that striking pleadings is a drastic remedy of last resort under Rule 14(23) of the Family Law Rules, the court imposed a conditional sanction.

The respondent was permitted to attend and cross‑examine but was barred from presenting his own evidence unless he paid the full arrears before the close of the applicant’s case.

The Crown brought two applications to admit similar fact evidence in a prosecution for multiple commercial break and enter offences.

The first application sought admission of the accused’s prior convictions for numerous break and enters committed several years earlier.

The second sought to permit count‑to‑count similar fact reasoning among the charged offences.

The court held that the alleged similarities—such as targeting commercial food premises, nighttime entries, use of dark clothing, and removal of door glass—were generic and did not amount to a distinctive signature or sufficiently striking pattern.

The Crown also failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary link connecting the accused to the charged offences.

Both applications were therefore dismissed.