Edward E. Gareau

This appeal concerns the sufficiency of reasons provided by a trial judge in a conviction for assault causing bodily harm.

The appellant, Sarah Bannon, argued that the trial judge failed to address or analyze the defence of self-defence, which was the central issue at trial.

The Superior Court found that the trial judge’s reasons did not mention self-defence or the relevant legal framework, preventing meaningful appellate review.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

This decision arises from an uncontested hearing regarding the sale and division of proceeds of a jointly owned home following the separation of the parties.

The applicant, Rayanne Headrick, sought an order for sale of the home, reimbursement for expenses incurred post-separation, and other related relief.

The respondent, James McNeill, was noted in default and did not participate in the proceedings.

The court ordered the sale of the property, reimbursement to the applicant for certain expenses, and dismissed claims for spousal support and a restraining order.

This decision concerns a Crown appeal of a conditional sentence imposed for sexual assault.

The Crown argued that a traditional jail sentence was required, emphasizing deterrence and denunciation, and alleged errors in the sentencing judge’s application of section 718.04 of the Criminal Code and in considering the offender’s intellectual disability as a mitigating factor.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge had carefully considered all relevant principles, including the vulnerability of Indigenous women and the impact on the complainant, and that exceptional circumstances justified the conditional sentence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, Daniel Knox, Harrison Knox, and Sherry Cole, sued His Majesty The King in Right of Ontario and several police constables for unlawful arrest and battery.

The claims stemmed from an incident where Daniel Knox and Sherry Cole arrived at a scene where Harrison Knox had already been arrested.

The court found that Daniel Knox assaulted an officer, justifying his arrest and the use of a taser.

Sherry Cole also assaulted an officer, justifying her arrest and the force used.

Harrison Knox's initial arrest was found lawful based on reasonable grounds.

The court dismissed all claims, concluding that the arrests were lawful and the force used by police was justified.

This motion concerned the passing of accounts for the estate of Arturo Perlini, specifically challenging the compensation claimed by the estate trustees and the management fee claimed by the attorney under a power of attorney.

The respondent objected to the amounts as unreasonable.

The court applied the five factors from Re Toronto General Trusts and Central Ontario Railway to determine fair and reasonable compensation, finding the claimed amounts excessive due to lack of complexity, delays, and poor investment decisions.

The court reduced the estate trustee fees from 5% to 3% of the estate value and significantly reduced the power of attorney management fee.

The applicant father and respondent mother brought interim motions regarding the principal residence of their two children.

The father sought residence in Elliot Lake, and the mother in Sudbury.

The court considered the children's best interests under the Divorce Act, including stability, past care, and parental plans.

The court found the father's plan for residence in Elliot Lake to be more established and in the children's best interest, citing the children's stronger connection to Elliot Lake, the oldest child's school stability, and concerns about the mother's past instability.

The father was granted primary care, with the mother receiving specified parenting time and shared holidays.

The applicant challenged the validity of a codicil to her mother's will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity due to dementia, and sought accountings under a Power of Attorney and for estate assets.

The court found the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving lack of capacity for the codicil, noting medical evidence did not support severe impairment at the time of execution.

The Power of Attorney accounting was deemed satisfied by a prior order, and further estate accounting was deemed disproportionate given the modest estate value.

The application was dismissed.

The offender, Michael Morris, was sentenced for sexual assault of a 14-year-old complainant.

The court considered the paramount sentencing principles of deterrence and denunciation for sexual offences against children, as guided by the Criminal Code and Supreme Court jurisprudence (R. v. Friesen).

Aggravating factors included the victim's age, multiple incidents, and a significant breach of trust due to the offender's close relationship with the victim's family.

Mitigating factors were limited to a largely unrelated criminal record.

The court imposed a five-year custodial sentence, less pre-trial custody credit, along with various ancillary orders.

The plaintiff, Fredrick Robinson, brought an uncontested defamation action against the defendant, Jeanette Niganobe, for false and defamatory Facebook posts.

The defendant had accused the plaintiff of drug addiction, drug dealing, financial and emotional abuse, and abandoning his family, which negatively impacted his business and personal life.

The court applied the three-part test for defamation from Grant v. Torstar Corp. and found the defendant liable.

General damages of $50,000 and aggravated damages of $25,000 were awarded, reflecting the high-handed and oppressive nature of the defendant's conduct, which was intended to gain advantage in family law proceedings.

Injunctive relief was denied due to the absence of recent defamatory statements.

The offender, Joshua Gauthier, was convicted of aggravated assault.

At the sentencing hearing, the court dismissed his application to enter a conviction for assault causing bodily harm instead of aggravated assault, affirming that the injuries sustained by the victim constituted "wounding" under the Criminal Code.

The court then imposed a 12-month conditional sentence followed by 24 months of probation, along with a DNA order and a 10-year firearms prohibition.

The decision balanced aggravating factors, such as the unprovoked violence in a recreational setting, with significant mitigating factors, including the offender's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, and strong community and family support.

General deterrence was emphasized as a paramount sentencing objective.

A voir dire was held to determine the voluntariness of an exculpatory statement made by the accused, Michael James Morris, to police.

The Crown sought to use the statement for cross-examination if the accused testified at his upcoming trial for sexual assault and related offences.

The accused alleged that a police officer induced his statement by implying he would be able to go home and see his son if he cooperated.

The court assessed the credibility of the accused and the police officer, finding the accused's testimony unconvincing and preferring the officer's account.

The court concluded that the statement was voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt and admissible for cross-examination.

This sentencing decision addresses three co-accused, James Bolan, Jarrett Jocko, and Gilbert Ryan Wilson, who pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling house.

The victim sustained severe, life-altering injuries from a premeditated and violent vigilante attack.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the extreme violence and premeditation, and mitigating factors such as guilty pleas, expressions of remorse, pre-sentence custody, and the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns (Duncan factors).

Gladue principles were applied for the Indigenous offenders, Bolan and Jocko.

The court rejected the defence's request for time served, imposing a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment for aggravated assault and 1 year concurrent for unlawful entry, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included DNA orders, lifetime firearms prohibitions (with sustenance hunting exception for Indigenous offenders), and no-contact orders with the victim and a co-accused.

Lorne Clifford Clement was charged with sexual assault.

The trial focused on the credibility of the complainant and the accused.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies with his prior police statement and admitted intoxication.

The complainant's evidence was deemed credible and compelling.

The court rejected arguments based on stereotypical behaviour of sexual assault victims, citing appellate authority.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The applicant sought interim custody and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, while the respondent sought joint custody and to retain the home.

The court granted the applicant interim sole custody, finding joint custody unworkable due to significant animus between the parties.

The respondent was granted unsupervised parenting time conditional on medication adherence.

The applicant was also granted interim exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, prioritizing the child's best interests over the respondent's business needs.

Costs were divided due to mixed success.

The applicant, charged with second-degree murder, renewed his application for judicial interim release based on a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and new sureties.

The court acknowledged COVID-19 as a material change but found its impact on the tertiary ground of detention minimal given the specific measures at the detention facility and the lack of specific evidence of the applicant's heightened vulnerability.

The court also found the proposed new sureties unsuitable due to evasive testimony.

Ultimately, the court concluded that continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, considering the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of its commission, and the strength of the Crown's case.

B.S. was convicted of indecent assault, a historical offense occurring almost 40 years prior.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12 to 18 months, while the offender requested a conditional sentence or a "short, sharp" intermittent sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the escalation of abusive behavior, the significant age disparity between the offender (18-20) and the victim (10-13), the victim's vulnerability, and the profound, lasting impact on the victim as detailed in her victim impact statement.

Mitigating factors included the offender's age (56), a positive pre-sentence report, gainful employment, positive community contributions, past efforts to address depression and substance abuse, and no prior custodial sentences.

The court determined that a conditional sentence would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and general and specific deterrence, which are paramount in sexual offense cases against children.

A "short, sharp" sentence was also deemed inadequate.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months, followed by three years of probation with specific conditions, a DNA order, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

A requested order under section 161(1) of the Criminal Code was denied as unnecessary given the offender's history since the offense.

This decision concerns a review of an interim parenting order for the parties' child.

The interim order had granted the applicant father custody and the respondent mother alternate weekend parenting time.

The applicant sought to continue this arrangement with a minor abridgment of the mother's parenting time, while the respondent sought to revert to a shared care arrangement.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer supported the continuation of the existing arrangement, citing the child's expressed preferences and improved well-being.

The court found that the child's best interests required the current arrangement to continue, denying the mother's request for shared care and the father's request for abridged parenting time.

The court also ordered joint counselling between the mother and child, a suggestion made by the mother.

The accused, D.G., was charged with two counts of assault and one count of sexual assault against the complainant, C.C., arising from a volatile common-law relationship.

The court heard evidence regarding verbal and physical altercations.

The accused admitted to restraining the complainant on two occasions, claiming self-defense.

Applying the principles of R. v. W.(D.) for credibility and s. 34 of the Criminal Code for self-defense, the court found that the accused's actions of restraint for the first assault count (July 2016) were reasonable and proportionate in self-defense, leading to an acquittal.

For the second assault count (March 14, 2017), while an act of simple assault was established, the court again found the self-defense argument had an "air of reality" and the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not acting in lawful self-defense.

Regarding the alleged punch to the head on March 14, 2017, and the sexual assault count, the court found serious credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, noting inconsistencies in her statements to police and lack of medical attention for the alleged head injury.

Consequently, the court was left with reasonable doubt on these counts.

All charges were dismissed, and the accused was acquitted.

The applicant, Robert Steven Wright, charged with first-degree murder, sought judicial interim release.

The court considered the application under the reverse onus provisions of the Criminal Code, specifically focusing on the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

While the secondary ground (public safety/reoffending) was not met due to the applicant's lack of criminal record and stable employment, the tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice) was central.

The court found the Crown's case, based on DNA and fingerprint evidence, to be very strong, bordering on overwhelming.

Considering the gravity of the offence, the violent circumstances, the potential lengthy imprisonment, and concerns regarding the proposed surety and release plan, the court concluded that detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for interim judicial release was dismissed.

This criminal trial involved 16 counts against the accused, Gary Joseph Levar, including various assault-related charges and a breach of recognizance.

The court heard evidence over nine days, focusing heavily on witness credibility, particularly given the extensive drug use by the complainant, the accused, and other key witnesses during the alleged events.

Forensic evidence, including toxicology and DNA analysis, was also presented.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) regarding reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the court found the evidence of the complainant to be unreliable due to drug intoxication and periods of unconsciousness, and found that the testimony of defence witnesses, particularly Vanessa McKinnon, raised reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on 14 of the 16 counts, including all serious assault charges, and Count 2 was dismissed at the Crown's request.

The accused was convicted only on Count 16, a breach of recognizance, and sentenced to 60 days incarceration with credit for pre-trial custody.