3 total
Summary judgment granted finding children in need of protection based on father's historical sexual misconduct.
This is a summary judgment motion in a child protection case involving three children and allegations of risk of sexual harm by their father.
The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the children are in need of protection under section 74(2)(d) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act based on risk of sexual abuse or sexual exploitation.
The case involved complex evidentiary issues, including the admissibility of hearsay evidence, police interview recordings, and expert assessments.
The court conducted a careful screening of evidence and made specific rulings on admissibility, ultimately finding that sufficient admissible evidence existed to conclude there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the risk of sexual harm ground.
First-time offender sentenced to nine months' imprisonment for possessing a large quantity of child pornography.
The 65-year-old accused, a first-time offender with an otherwise exemplary background, was found guilty of possessing a large quantity of child pornography.
The Crown sought 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of six months.
The court weighed the significant mitigating factors, including the accused's low risk of reoffending and positive community history, against the aggravating factor of the large collection of images.
The court sentenced the accused to nine months' imprisonment followed by three years' probation, along with ancillary orders.
Judicial review granted and termination upheld where arbitrator unreasonably reinstated peace officer convicted of exhibitionism.
The applicant Ministry sought judicial review of a Grievance Settlement Board decision reinstating a Transportation Enforcement Officer who was terminated after pleading guilty to off-duty indecent acts.
The Divisional Court allowed the application and upheld the termination, finding that the Board's decision was unreasonable.
The Board misapprehended medical evidence regarding the employee's long-term risk of reoffending and unreasonably diminished the significance of the Millhaven criteria for off-duty conduct, particularly the negative impact on the employee's credibility as a peace officer required to testify in court.