E. Gareau

The applicant mother and respondent father brought competing motions regarding where their three children should attend elementary school following their separation.

The mother sought to enroll the children at a school in Sault Ste.

Marie, while the father sought to keep them at their current school in Echo Bay.

The court found that despite the logistical inconvenience to the parents, it was in the best interests of the children to maintain stability and consistency by remaining at their current school for the academic year, given the stress they were experiencing from the separation.

In a pre-trial voir dire for a second-degree murder case, the court ruled on the admissibility of a 911 call and a police statement made by the accused.

The court found that the accused was not detained during the 911 call and that his participation was voluntary.

Furthermore, the court held that the accused's subsequent statement to a detective was voluntary under the Oickle standard and that his section 10(b) Charter right to counsel was not violated.

Both the 911 call and the police statement were ruled admissible at trial.

The applicant brought a motion for the sale of a jointly owned home following the separation of the unmarried parties.

The respondent, who resided in the home, opposed the sale but could not offer sufficient reasons or afford to keep the property.

Applying the Partition Act and the test from Davis v. Davis, the court found no exceptional circumstances to deny the sale.

The court ordered the property to be listed for sale, with the net proceeds paid into court pending resolution of the respondent's constructive trust claim.

The self-represented applicants filed a notice of application containing allegations of impropriety against the respondent municipality's lawyers and CAO.

The applicants subsequently abandoned the application.

The respondent sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The court held that the unproven and unfounded allegations of impropriety warranted an elevated costs award.

The court fixed costs payable by the applicants to the respondent at $17,696.47.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application following the offender's convictions for sexual assault, assault with a weapon, and assault causing bodily harm.

The offender had an extensive criminal record, including two prior convictions for sexual assault.

The court heard competing expert evidence on the offender's risk of re-offending.

The court found that while the offender had a pattern of repetitive behaviour, the Crown failed to prove beyond a balance of probabilities that there was a likelihood of the offender causing death, injury, or severe psychological damage in the future.

The court also declined to designate the offender as a long-term offender.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10.5 years, reduced to 2 years less a day after credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by 3 years of probation with strict conditions.

The plaintiffs, step-children of the deceased, challenged the validity of a 2007 will that left the estate entirely to the deceased's biological children.

They argued the 2007 will was invalid due to lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and the existence of a prior 1983 mutual will.

Alternatively, they claimed compensation for services rendered on a quantum meruit basis.

The court dismissed the action, finding no evidence that the 1983 wills were mutual wills incapable of revocation.

The court also found the deceased had testamentary capacity based on medical evidence and that the presumption of undue influence was rebutted.

The quantum meruit claim failed because the services were provided out of love and affection without expectation of compensation.

The accused applied under s. 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to exclude evidence obtained through a police investigation into alleged child pornography offences.

Police obtained subscriber information from an internet service provider through a Law Enforcement Request without prior judicial authorization and subsequently obtained a search warrant for the accused’s residence and computer devices.

The court held that obtaining subscriber information without prior judicial authorization constituted a breach of s. 8 of the Charter under the principles later articulated in R. v. Spencer.

However, applying the framework in R. v. Grant, the court admitted the evidence because the police acted in good faith under pre‑Spencer practices and the evidence was essential to adjudicating serious charges on their merits.

The court also rejected the accused’s challenge to the Information to Obtain, finding that an error regarding peer ID numbers was inadvertent and immaterial and that the warrant was otherwise supported by reasonable and probable grounds.

Two motions to change were tried together concerning parenting arrangements for two children.

The father sought to vary a prior order requiring supervised access to allow unsupervised access, while the paternal grandparents sought unsupervised access after years of supervised visits.

The court found that the children had a longstanding, positive bond with the grandparents and that the mother’s decision to restrict contact to supervised access following a disputed incident was disproportionate and arbitrary.

Unsupervised access for the grandparents was ordered.

The father’s request for unsupervised access was denied due to ongoing instability, including criminal conduct, substance use history, and inconsistent parenting involvement.

The court also declined to order the children’s return from Windsor to Sault Ste.

Marie, finding they were well settled and that relocation remained in their best interests.

The parties, parents of a four-year-old child, brought competing interim motions.

The mother sought to relocate the child from Hornepayne to Sudbury to pursue education and reside with her new partner, and requested that the father's access be supervised following allegations of sexual impropriety.

The father sought expanded unsupervised access and opposed the relocation.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz factors and determined that an interim relocation was not in the child's best interests, as it would disrupt the child's relationship with the father and community prior to a full trial.

Regarding access, the court noted that the Children's Aid Society had investigated the allegations and found them unsubstantiated, concluding there were no protection concerns.

Consequently, the court dismissed the mother's motions, denied the interim relocation, and reinstated the father's unsupervised access.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its statement of claim to add the principal of the defendant corporation as a party defendant.

The proposed defendant argued the motion was barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiff argued the limitation period was extended by email correspondence or, alternatively, that the amendment corrected a misnomer.

The court found the emails did not extend the limitation period as they were sent on behalf of the corporation, not the individual personally.

The court also held the amendment sought to add an entirely new party, not correct a misnomer, and dismissed the motion as statute-barred.

The defendant was entirely successful on a motion to compel the production of a bishop for examination for discovery and sought costs.

The plaintiff argued the defendant should be denied costs because its counsel failed to disclose a recent, allegedly similar decision by another judge.

The court held that the undisclosed decision dealt with different, narrower issues and was not binding, so the failure to disclose it did not deprive the defendant of costs.

Finding no reprehensible conduct by the plaintiff, the court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $15,000.

The applicant, the maternal aunt of the child, sought ongoing and retroactive child support, as well as section 7 expenses, from the respondent biological father.

The respondent claimed undue hardship to pay less than the table amount.

The court dismissed the undue hardship claim, ordering the table amount based on the respondent's income.

The court denied the claims for section 7 expenses, finding them not to be extraordinary.

The court awarded a lump sum of $5,500 for retroactive child support, considering the date of effective notice and the respondent's prior voluntary contributions.

Following the tragic death of the children's mother, the maternal aunt and the biological father brought competing claims for interim custody.

The children had been residing with the aunt and attending school in her district prior to the mother's death.

The court found conflicting evidence regarding the father's prior involvement and noted the children's special needs required stability.

The court ordered interim joint custody, with the children residing with the aunt during the week to maintain their school placement, and with the father on weekends, pending a full trial.

The moving party brought a motion to change seeking to reduce a previously ordered spousal support obligation of $4,000 per month.

He argued that his income had decreased while the responding party’s income had increased since the trial order.

The court found that although income changes existed, the reduction resulted largely from the moving party’s voluntary employment change and the substantial reduction in marital debt offset the claimed decrease in earnings.

Applying the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines with updated incomes showed that the existing support amount remained within the guideline range.

The court concluded that the moving party failed to establish a sufficient basis to reduce support.

In a custody dispute between a children's maternal aunt and their father following the death of the children's mother, a First Nation band sought to be added as a party or alternatively granted intervener status.

The band argued its participation was necessary to assist the court in assessing the best interests of children of First Nations heritage.

The court held that under the Children’s Law Reform Act and the Family Law Rules, a non-party should only be added where their presence is necessary to determine the issues in dispute.

Because the father was a member of the First Nation and could present cultural and community evidence, the band’s participation was not necessary.

The motion to be added as a party and the alternative request for intervener or amicus status were dismissed.

The offender was sentenced following convictions on ten counts including multiple arsons, insurance fraud, identity fraud, and counselling to commit arson.

The offences involved four planned fires at residential properties and a fraudulent scheme involving a life insurance policy connected to the offender’s former spouse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender’s role as the organizer who directed another vulnerable individual to set several of the fires.

After applying the principles of proportionality, totality, and parity, the court imposed a global sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with credit for pre‑sentence custody.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, a lifetime firearms prohibition, and restitution payable to an insurance company for property losses.

The defendant brought a motion to amend its third-party claim to substitute a sole proprietorship operating as a janitorial service in place of a corporation incorrectly named as a third party.

The court held that the proposed amendment was not merely a correction of a misnomer but the addition of a new legal entity.

The moving party had been put on notice of the error years earlier but failed to act diligently before the limitation period expired.

The proposed sole proprietor had since died, depriving the defence of potential evidence and causing prejudice that could not be compensated by costs.

The court exercised its discretion under the Rules of Civil Procedure to refuse the amendment.

On competing motions for interim custody and access following the recent separation of unmarried parents, the court considered allegations regarding substance use, parenting capacity, and communication difficulties.

The evidence demonstrated that prior to separation the parties successfully co‑parented their young child and both were capable caregivers.

The court found no compelling evidence that either parent posed a risk to the child and concluded that maintaining substantial involvement by both parents was in the child’s best interests.

A temporary shared parenting arrangement was ordered pending further review, with the schedule designed to reflect each parent’s work commitments.

No costs were awarded due to divided success and the parties’ limited means.

The accused was charged with multiple counts arising from three break and enters at Subway restaurant locations over several days.

Surveillance footage, physical evidence, and DNA recovered from a balaclava linked the accused to the offences, while the accused testified denying involvement and suggesting innocent explanations for the evidence.

The court applied the credibility framework from R. v. W.(D.) and rejected the accused’s account.

After finding the accused responsible for one break and enter, the court admitted similar fact evidence due to striking similarities in timing, method, clothing, and tools used across the incidents.

The similarities and physical evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the same perpetrator committed all three break and enters.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a vessel causing death and operating a vessel with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg causing death, following a tragic boating accident where a water skier was struck and killed by the boat's propeller.

The central issue at trial was the identity of the driver of the boat at the time of the collision.

While the accused made statements shortly after the accident suggesting she was the driver, the court found these statements unreliable due to her hysterical state.

The only eyewitness who testified the accused was driving had significant inconsistencies in his evidence.

Applying the W.(D.) test, the court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the vessel, resulting in an acquittal on all charges.