Dr. Murphy

The father brought a motion to change seeking a custody reversal and child support after the mother engaged in a concerted campaign of parental alienation.

Despite previous court orders for reunification therapy, the mother refused to comply.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer introduced expert and social worker evidence indicating the child's extreme views against the father had intensified, including threats of self-harm.

The court concluded that while the mother was responsible for the alienation, a custody reversal would likely fail and cause further harm to the child.

The child was ordered to remain in the mother's primary care with independent counselling, and the father's motion was dismissed.

This is a sentencing decision for Maryah Capri, who was convicted of prolonged and multi-faceted fraud against the Ontario Works Program, receiving over $104,000 between 2012 and 2016 by falsely claiming to be a single parent.

The court considered her difficult childhood, substance abuse, mental health issues, and criminal record.

The Crown sought 6-9 months custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court denied a conditional sentence, finding it inappropriate given the severity, duration, and complexity of the fraud, the offender's lack of full acceptance of responsibility, and concerns about compliance and community safety.

Capri was sentenced to 180 days custody followed by 36 months probation, with the Crown's request for a prohibition order under section 380.2 of the Criminal Code denied.

The applicant sought medical benefits for physiotherapy, psychological treatment, and an orthopaedic assessment following a motor vehicle accident.

The adjudicator found that the insurer complied with the notice requirements under s. 38(8) of the Schedule.

The adjudicator dismissed the claims for physiotherapy, finding the applicant had reached maximum medical recovery and failed to exhaust collateral benefits.

The claim for an orthopaedic assessment was dismissed as it was available through OHIP.

The claim for further psychological treatment was dismissed as the applicant failed to prove the need for treatment beyond what the insurer had already partially approved.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the University of Toronto Appeal Division recommending his expulsion for academic offences involving forged transcripts.

The applicant argued the Appeal Division failed to properly weigh mitigating factors, including his remorse, first-offender status, and expert evidence.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review, finding that the Appeal Division's decision on penalty was entitled to high deference.

The court concluded the Appeal Division's reasons were justified, transparent, and intelligible, and dismissed the application.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of a medical negligence action arising from gynecological surgery in which sutures injured the patient’s ureter.

The court held that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence concerning the surgeon’s final inspection and failed to apply the only expert evidence addressing the precise operative circumstances, with the result that negligence should have been found.

The court upheld the trial judge’s rejection of causation between the surgery and the patient’s long-term fibromyalgia, but increased general damages for pain and suffering from $20,000 to $28,000 by using the date of the first surgery as the start of compensable harm.

The appeal was allowed, judgment for the plaintiffs was substituted, and the appellants were awarded trial and appeal costs on a party-and-party basis.

The accused admitted killing his spouse but argued he acted in an automatistic dissociative state allegedly triggered by insulting words.

The Court clarified a general two-step framework for automatism, requiring the defence to establish a proper evidentiary foundation and then requiring the trial judge to determine whether the condition is mental disorder or non-mental disorder automatism by reference to internal cause, continuing danger, and policy factors.

The majority held that the alleged condition was properly treated as a disease of the mind and that only mental disorder automatism should have gone to the jury.

The Court also held that disclosure of the defence psychiatric report caused no miscarriage of justice and that provocation may still mitigate sentence after reducing murder to manslaughter.

Both the conviction appeal and the Crown sentence appeal were dismissed.