Duane Alan Jacobs

The defendants were charged with discharging or causing the discharge of a pesticide (Headline) into the environment contrary to the Pesticides Act.

The Crown alleged that on July 23, 2013, a helicopter operated by the defendants sprayed pesticide near Highway 40 and St. Andrews Line in Chatham-Kent, causing material discomfort to two witnesses.

The trial hinged on identity and whether the pesticide was improperly used.

The court found that while the pesticide was detected and material discomfort was established, the Crown failed to prove identity and improper use beyond a reasonable doubt.

The critical evidence linking the defendants to the incident (Exhibit 13) was found to be unreliable due to authentication and reliability problems.

The defendants were acquitted.

A child protection motion for summary judgment brought by Chatham-Kent Children's Services seeking Crown wardship of two children with no access.

The respondent parents had histories of drug use and criminal activity.

The father had engaged in ongoing criminal conduct including break and enter offences and was facing drug charges.

The mother had demonstrated some progress in addiction treatment through methadone programming but continued to test positive for illicit drugs including amphetamines and methamphetamines.

Both children had been in care well beyond the statutory period requiring permanency planning.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted Crown wardship with no access for purposes of adoption.

A child protection application concerning two children, S. and J., brought by Chatham-Kent Children's Services.

The Society alleged that the children were in need of protection due to physical and emotional abuse, inappropriate discipline, and inadequate care by their mother and stepfather.

The trial addressed grounds for protection, supervision of access, and whether ongoing protection orders were necessary.

The court found that S. was in need of protection and made her a Crown ward with supervised access to her mother.

The court found that J. was in need of protection in 2007-2008 but that no ongoing protection order was warranted, and he remained in his mother's care without supervision.