Dr. Collins

The appellant appealed his conviction for second-degree murder of his intimate partner, arguing he lacked the capacity to form the requisite intent due to a cocaine-induced psychosis.

The trial judge rejected the defence psychiatric expert's opinion, finding it lacked objectivity and was inconsistent with the appellant's purposeful actions before, during, and after the shooting.

The Court of Appeal found no reversible error in the trial judge's assessment of the expert evidence and dismissed the appeal.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on a charge of second-degree murder, raising three grounds: a breach of jury secrecy during a juror inquiry, errors in a s. 8 Charter analysis and subsequent s. 24(2) exclusion of evidence, and errors in excluding hearsay evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's handling of the jury inquiry, upholding the application judge's decision to exclude evidence under the Charter, and affirming the exclusion of hearsay statements due to reliability concerns.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order that the parties' child attend school online due to COVID-19 concerns and a finding of contempt against the father for unilaterally registering the child for in-person attendance.

The father brought a cross-motion for the child to attend in-person and take the school bus.

Applying the Zinati factors, the court found it was in the child's best interests to attend school in-person and take the bus, as there was no evidence of unacceptable risk to the child or family members.

However, the court found the father breached the joint custody order by acting unilaterally and ordered him to pay the mother's costs for the contempt motion.

The defendant, completely successful at a jury trial where plaintiffs claimed $4.5 million, sought partial indemnity costs of $180,787.95.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the lack of a Rule 49 offer to settle should deny costs and that the quantum was excessive.

The court affirmed that costs should follow the event, even without a formal offer, and ordered costs against all plaintiffs jointly and severally.

The court reduced the defendant's claimed fees by disallowing law clerk attendance at trial and adjusting hourly rates for counsel and law clerks.

Expert report costs were also reduced from $27,912.50 to $15,000.00.

Travel costs for counsel and the instructing client were allowed due to the trial's transfer to Thunder Bay at the plaintiffs' convenience.

This endorsement reviews the custody and access arrangements following a previous judgment where the mother (Y) was found to have alienated the children from the father (X).

The court had ordered X to have sole custody and Y to participate in the Family Bridges Program and counselling.

Despite these orders, Y demonstrated significant non-compliance, causing delays and increased litigation costs, and subsequently declared bankruptcy.

The court, balancing Y's continued alienating behaviors and non-compliance against the children's strong desire to see their mother and their progress in reunification, granted Y limited unmonitored access.

The court also ruled that the costs associated with the Family Bridges Program and Y's counselling were in the nature of child support and maintenance, thus exempt from Y's bankruptcy discharge under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The applicant challenged the validity of two search warrants executed at his residence on Charter section 8 grounds.

The applicant was originally convicted of possession of child pornography following a nine-day trial.

Upon reopening the trial, the court examined whether the police exceeded the scope of the first warrant by seizing CDs and DVDs that the issuing justice had expressly prohibited.

The court found that the issuing justice's oral directions limiting the search to digital cameras and memory cards were binding on the police, and that the seizure of the Montreal CD and other storage devices constituted over-seizure in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court further found that the second warrant could not have been issued without the information derived from the unlawfully seized Montreal CD.

The court excluded the evidence and dismissed the charge.

This is a costs decision following a four-day trial concerning parenting and support arrangements for the parties' child.

The applicant (father) sought no costs order, while the respondent (mother) claimed costs of $15,097.25 for legal assistance received during the litigation.

The court found the mother was the successful party based on comparison of settlement offers and trial positions.

The court awarded costs of $10,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 90 days.

The court declined to award costs for work done at prior steps in the case, limiting the award to work performed for the trial step.

The applicant father sought sole custody of the parties' two young children.

The respondent mother had made repeated, unsubstantiated allegations of sexual and physical abuse against the father, leading to numerous investigations by police and child protection agencies, all of which were closed without charges.

The court-appointed assessor and multiple therapists testified that the children suffered from disorganized attachment and were being harmed by the mother's fixed, delusional belief that the father was dangerous.

The court found that the mother's conduct was alienating and contrary to the children's best interests.

Sole custody was awarded to the father immediately, with the mother's access suspended pending further review and therapy.

The appellant pleaded guilty to criminal harassment and uttering threats.

Years later, he appealed his convictions, seeking to introduce fresh psychiatric evidence to establish he was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCR-MD) at the time of the offences.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the fresh evidence did not meet the fourth criterion of the Palmer test.

The court concluded that the appellant's own writings demonstrated he knew his conduct was morally and legally wrong, meaning the fresh evidence could not reasonably be expected to have affected the result.

The appellant teacher appealed a penalty decision of the Ontario College of Teachers revoking her teaching certificate after she was found guilty of professional misconduct for an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old student.

The appellant argued the Committee erred in admitting expert evidence on 'grooming' at the penalty phase since she was acquitted of actual abuse.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the admission of expert evidence was proper and the penalty of revocation was reasonable and entitled to deference.