Dominique Durieux Smith

The accused was tried on two counts of criminal harassment and one count of breach of probation arising from post-separation contact with his estranged spouse.

The court reviewed a lengthy course of communications and encounters in the context of an on-again, off-again relationship, ongoing property disputes, and mixed messages from the complainant.

Although the court found one August incident amounted to deliberate harassment, it was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant feared for her personal safety or psychological well-being as required by s. 264.

The evidence of repeated following also did not rise above suspicion.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

Sentencing decision following convictions for possession of a restricted weapon, possession of a loaded restricted firearm without a licence, and possession of a firearm knowing it had been obtained by crime.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for loaded restricted handgun possession, particularly where the firearm was stored in a residence with very young children and the offender had a lengthy criminal record with continuing offending while on bail and in custody.

Applying the pre-sentence custody credit approach from Summers, the court granted enhanced credit at 1.5 to 1 but reduced it by two months because the offender’s custodial misconduct made full remission unlikely.

A sentence of four and one half years' imprisonment, less 23.5 months' credit, was imposed together with a lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The accused brought a motion for a directed verdict seeking acquittals on firearm possession charges, arguing the Crown had not led evidence capable of establishing knowledge of the firearm’s presence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence linking the accused to a residence where a loaded 9 mm handgun and ammunition were found concealed in the master bedroom.

The court applied the directed verdict test and considered whether there was some evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could convict.

The court held that multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence supported an inference that the accused knew of and had control over the firearm.

The motion for a directed verdict was therefore dismissed.

In a child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act, the society sought orders restraining the father from contacting the mother and suspending his access to the child due to domestic violence, substance abuse concerns, and threatening conduct.

Evidence included numerous police incidents involving domestic violence and a forensic psychiatric assessment indicating a high risk of future spousal assault.

The mother had separated from the father and relocated to an undisclosed location for safety.

The court held that the child’s best interests required placement with the mother under the society’s supervision and suspension of the father’s access until specified conditions were met.

The decision emphasized the relevance of domestic violence and parental conduct toward a partner when assessing child protection risks and access.

The appellant was convicted of robbery and conspiracy after the trial judge found he was the driver of the getaway vehicle.

The appellant appealed, arguing the trial judge misapprehended the evidence and the verdict was unreasonable.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the inference that the appellant's van was the getaway vehicle was available given the circumstantial evidence, including his presence in a running van near the robbery scene in the middle of the night.

On a temporary care and custody motion under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought an order placing a child in the temporary care and custody of the mother under the Society’s supervision with multiple conditions.

The child had previously been apprehended due to domestic violence exposure, concerns about the condition of the home, and questions regarding the mother’s mental health and cooperation with the Society.

The father opposed the motion and sought to maintain Society care while pursuing access.

The court applied the statutory test under s. 51(3) and emphasized the CFSA’s paramount objective of promoting the best interests, protection, and well-being of children while favouring the least disruptive course consistent with safety.

Finding that the child could be adequately protected through a supervision order and that the mother had taken meaningful steps to address protection concerns, the court ordered the child returned to the mother’s care subject to extensive conditions.

Child protection disposition following an amended status review under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two young children with significant behavioural and developmental challenges.

The applicant society sought Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption and a restraining order against the father.

Both parents opposed the application and proposed separate plans of care, including supervision orders and kinship placement with maternal grandparents.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection and that neither parent’s plan provided sufficient stability, parenting capacity, or ability to work cooperatively with required support services.

Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption was ordered and a restraining order was issued restricting the father’s contact with the society, foster parents, and future adoptive parents.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, all parties agreed the children remained in need of protection due to parental incapacity and sought a permanent care plan under s. 57.1.

Competing plans proposed placement with maternal grandparents, with the paternal grandmother, or maintenance of split placements.

After reviewing extensive evidence on caregiving capacity, family conflict, cultural and religious issues, and the children’s best interests, the court ordered shared legal custody between the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandmother on an alternating weekly schedule.

The court also set terms for religious holidays, birthday exchanges, and transition arrangements.