Dr. Jain

The offender was convicted of two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of using an imitation firearm to commit an indictable offence.

The offender was experiencing drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offences, having consumed marijuana despite a documented history of psychotic episodes triggered by cannabis use and multiple hospitalizations where medical professionals warned him of the dangers.

The offender absconded before sentencing.

The court imposed a two-year custodial sentence (one year concurrent on assault charges, one year consecutive on the firearm charge) plus two years probation, finding the offender's moral culpability to be extremely high given his awareness of the risks and prior violent incidents while intoxicated.

The father sought to change the children's primary residence from Thunder Bay to London, Ontario, and sought sole custody, alleging the mother had mental health issues and failed to address the children's special needs.

The mother opposed the relocation and sought to retain primary care and decision-making.

The court found the mother was the primary parent and the children's status quo was with her.

Applying the Children's Law Reform Act and common law principles, the court determined that the father failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances or that the relocation was in the children's best interests, noting his history of undermining the mother and his own move from Thunder Bay.

The court dismissed the father's request for relocation and granted the mother sole decision-making authority and primary residence, with specified parenting time for the father and an order for child support arrears and ongoing support.

The applicant requested a reconsideration of a decision dismissing his human rights application against the Law School Admission Council.

He sought to introduce a new letter from his psychologist to prove he had submitted a comprehensive achievement battery as part of his accommodation request for the LSAT.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the new evidence could reasonably have been obtained prior to the original hearing and that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for reconsideration under Rule 26.5.