Dr. J. Rootenberg

The applicant mother brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking the return of her 12-month-old child from Mexico to Ontario.

The parties had travelled to Mexico temporarily, but the respondent father subsequently refused to return the child to the mother.

The court applied the hybrid approach to determine habitual residence and found that the child was habitually resident in Ontario.

The court concluded that the father wrongfully retained the child and ordered the child's immediate return to Ontario.

Following a conviction on one count of sexual assault, the defendant brought an application to re-open the trial and seek a mistrial based on fresh evidence that emerged in the victim's impact statement.

The fresh evidence revealed that the complainant had pre-existing mental health conditions and was taking multiple medications at the time of the alleged assault, information that had not been disclosed during trial.

The defendant's former counsel had relied on a health history form completed by the complainant that failed to disclose these conditions.

The court found that the fresh evidence was material and could have affected the verdict, particularly regarding the complainant's credibility and reliability as a witness.

The court granted the application to re-open and declared a mistrial, finding that the trial judge could not objectively reassess the complainant's credibility without creating an appearance of bias.

Dangerous offender sentencing following guilty pleas to choking to commit sexual assault and sexual assault causing bodily harm arising from a prolonged stranger attack.

The court held that the Crown proved all three relied-upon designation gateways under ss. 753(1)(a)(i), 753(1)(a)(ii), and 753(1)(b) of the Criminal Code, based on a lengthy history of sexual offending, enduring paraphilic disorders, antisocial traits, failed treatment, and repeated supervision breaches.

Applying the framework in Boutilier and the least-restrictive inquiry at the penalty stage, the court found no reasonable expectation that a determinate sentence followed by a 10-year LTSO would adequately protect the public.

The offender was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to indeterminate detention.

The accused, a pharmacist, pleaded guilty to defrauding the Ontario Drug Benefit Plan of $2.5 million over three years by knowingly overbilling for pharmaceuticals not purchased or dispensed.

The accused had repaid $2 million in restitution but $500,000 remained outstanding.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day in custody, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence despite evidence of the accused's depression, drug addiction, and rehabilitation prospects.

The court emphasized that general deterrence is the paramount sentencing principle in large-scale fraud cases involving breach of trust.

The appellant was convicted of threatening and criminally harassing his former common law wife.

Following the finding of guilt, defence counsel requested a psychiatric assessment, which led to a finding that the appellant was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) due to alcohol-related dementia and delusions.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the NCRMD finding was unreasonable and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel because his lawyer raised his mental state without instructions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the NCRMD verdict was reasonable and that the appellant failed to prove his counsel acted without instructions or that the counsel's performance resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

The offender, a tax preparer, pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal government of over $1.1 million through false expense and childcare schemes.

He personally profited by $448,000.

The Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation for large-scale frauds by persons in positions of trust.

The offender was sentenced to 3 years' imprisonment and ordered to pay a $448,000 fine in lieu of forfeiture, with an additional 3 years consecutive in default of payment.