George J. Brophy

The applicant sought costs following a successful family law proceeding regarding child support and section 7 expenses.

The applicant was wholly successful in obtaining updated support orders, while the respondent opposed the request and behaved unreasonably throughout the proceedings.

The court awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000.00, payable forthwith, after considering the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the applicant's reasonable conduct, the respondent's unreasonable opposition, and the applicant's attempt to settle the matter.

The applicant brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking to enforce a Superior Court order for Skype access by requiring the respondent to produce the three children at a supervised access centre.

The applicant, a British citizen residing in Japan, sought to compel compliance with a 2011 access order.

The respondent, a Canadian citizen residing in Ontario with the children, opposed the motion, arguing the children were unenthusiastic about the access.

The court declined to grant the order, finding that Skype access at a supervised access centre without a forward-looking plan would not be in the children's best interests and that the enforcement matter was inextricably linked to unresolved issues in the underlying Superior Court action.

The respondent sought costs following a motion brought by the applicant to restrict the respondent's access to their child, require a section 30 custody and access assessment, and mandate drug and alcohol testing.

The motion was largely dismissed on June 16, 2015, with only incidental orders made regarding disclosure of records, alcohol consumption restrictions during access, and video recording prohibitions.

The court awarded costs to the respondent as the successful party, but significantly reduced the claimed amount due to excessive hours billed and work not directly related to the motion.

Appeal from a conviction under section 2(1) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act for permitting a motor vehicle to be operated on a highway without insurance.

The appellant owned a vehicle that was driven by another individual on a test drive basis.

The Crown proved ownership through Ministry of Transportation records and established that no insurance was in place.

The appellant raised grounds of appeal regarding hearsay evidence, denial of a non-suit motion, and application of the strict liability test.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding the trial justice properly applied the law and made no material errors of fact.

The sentence was also upheld.

Motion to change child support and section 7 expenses.

The applicant sought to vary the original child support order based on the respondent's actual income and to obtain contribution to child care expenses.

The court found that the respondent's actual 2014 income was $41,805.00 (not the estimated $30,500.00 used in the original order), resulting in underpayment of child support.

For 2015, the court attributed income of $30,000.00 to the respondent based on his employment with Morgan Roofing Contractors and prior employment.

The court ordered the respondent to pay child support arrears and to contribute 62% of ongoing child care expenses based on his proportionate share of combined parental income.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences arising from two separate incidents.

The first incident on November 9, 2014 involved uttering threats to his mother, breaching a probation order, threatening to damage property, and committing mischief by kicking and damaging a door.

The second incident on November 17, 2014 involved assaulting a police officer by spitting on him while in custody.

The officer was exposed to the accused's saliva, raising concerns about potential transmission of Hepatitis C. The court imposed a sentence of 24 months less a day in a provincial institution with a recommendation for placement at St. Lawrence Valley Correctional Treatment Centre, along with a three-year probation order with multiple conditions.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial proceeded on a blended hearing addressing two main issues: whether breath testing was conducted as soon as practicable, and whether there was a Section 8 Charter breach related to video surveillance of the cell area and the presence of a police officer during the accused's use of the toilet.

The court found no breach of the "as soon as practicable" requirement and determined that even if a privacy breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under Section 24(2).

The accused was convicted and sentenced to a $1,000 fine, a $300 victim fine surcharge, and a one-year driving prohibition.

Application to dispense with the biological father's consent to the adoption of a child by the maternal grandparents.

The child has lived with the grandparents since birth and is approximately five years old.

The biological father has had minimal contact with the child, exercising almost no access over the years.

The court found it in the child's best interests to dispense with the father's consent and permit the adoption to proceed, as the child has no meaningful relationship with the father and would benefit from the permanency and security of adoption by the grandparents who have provided stable, loving care.

The accused, an 84-year-old man, was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code for allegedly touching the complainant, a 20-year-old woman, in a sexual manner without her consent on July 23, 2014.

The Crown alleged that during a visit to the complainant's home, the accused groped the complainant's breast and buttocks while hugging her in the garage.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming the interaction was an ordinary hug with a brief peck on the cheek.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and compelling, while finding the accused's testimony contradictory, inconsistent, and demonstrating a lack of understanding of appropriate boundaries.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking termination of child support and rescission of arrears.

The child support obligation was established in 1989 at $200 per month and was to terminate when the child was no longer in school.

The respondent claimed he paid child support directly to the applicant from 1990 to 1998 after the applicant withdrew from the Family Responsibility Office, and that he was unaware of her subsequent reinstatement with the enforcement program.

The court found that the respondent reasonably believed the applicant had removed herself from the enforcement program and was entitled to pay directly.

The court terminated child support as of August 1, 2006, and rescinded all arrears claimed by the Ministry.

An appeal from a conviction for stunt driving under section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was charged after being clocked at 149 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on a motorcycle.

The appeal raised three grounds: failure to notify the appellant of trial date, that manufacturer's testing procedures for the radar device were mandatory, and that the investigating officer lacked proper training.

The trial Justice of the Peace found the officer credible and determined that manufacturer's recommendations were not mandatory requirements but rather a checklist for ensuring accuracy and reliability.

The appeal court upheld the conviction, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and no error in law.

A London Police Service constable was charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code after responding to a Code 1 armed robbery call.

While responding with lights and sirens activated, the officer approached an intersection controlled by a red light.

The officer slowed significantly but did not come to a complete stop, failed to reactivate her siren (which she had turned off per a sergeant's direction), and did not see an oncoming vehicle proceeding on a green light.

The collision resulted in injuries to two pedestrians and occupants of the other vehicle.

The trial judge acquitted the officer, finding that while the conduct constituted the actus reus of dangerous driving, the Crown failed to establish the required mens rea of a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the officer's circumstances.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, possession of marijuana contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and breach of probation.

The offences occurred on June 12, 2014, when the accused, who had been drinking, became involved in a physical altercation with a long-standing acquaintance.

The accused has an extensive criminal history spanning approximately 11 years in custody, with a pattern of violent offences and threatening behaviour dating back to 1992.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment with credit for 164 days of pre-sentence custody (grossed up to 246 days at a 1.5:1 ratio), followed by a three-year probation order with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, weapons prohibition, substance abuse restrictions, and mandatory counselling.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that on July 19, 2013, the accused grabbed the complainant's breasts from behind at a bar in Goderich.

On July 20, 2013, the Crown alleged the accused groped the complainant in a taxi and subsequently engaged in non-consensual sexual intercourse with her at the accused's best friend's residence.

The accused's defence was that the first incident did not occur and that the second and third incidents were consensual.

The trial judge found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's evidence as discordant with ordinary behaviour.

The court found the accused guilty on counts 2 and 3 but acquitted him on count 1 due to insufficient evidence of identification in the crowded bar setting.

The accused was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm contrary to section 91(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that on August 23, 2012, the accused possessed a .22 calibre rifle without a valid firearms license.

The accused raised several defences including Charter delay, an exception under section 91(4), a claim based on Crown Patent status, officially induced error, and an argument that the rifle was not a firearm.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed a functioning firearm without authorization and convicted the accused.

The applicant sought costs in the amount of $10,000.00 in a family law proceeding concerning access to a child.

The matter began in July 2010 with the applicant seeking custody, child support, a restraining order, and no access for the respondent, who had a history of sexual offending against a different child.

Custody and child support were resolved by November 2010 and April 2011 respectively.

The access dispute continued through 2011-2013 with multiple court attendances awaiting risk assessments and proposed supervisors.

The matter was ultimately resolved on the basis of supervised access with a supervisor approved by the applicant.

The court found the applicant was moderately successful and entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis, but discounted the award by 25% due to various factors including the respondent's modest income and the lack of complexity in the legal issues.

Motion for temporary spousal support in a family law matter involving a couple with a severely disabled child requiring constant care.

The applicant sought temporary spousal support retroactive to May 2013, with the respondent conceding entitlement based on need.

The central dispute concerned the respondent's income level and whether non-taxable employment benefits should be imputed as additional income.

The court determined the respondent's income at $51,079 plus $80 monthly for a cell phone benefit, rejecting the applicant's broader imputation arguments regarding vehicle benefits and employer-paid insurance premiums.

Temporary spousal support was ordered at $550 per month commencing November 1, 2013, with arrears fixed at $5,500 payable at $250 monthly.

The accused was charged with possession of marijuana under 3 kg for the purpose of trafficking contrary to section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and possession of break-in instruments contrary to section 351(1) of the Criminal Code.

Police discovered 211 grams of marijuana in the accused's vehicle, along with digital scales, cash, and break-in tools.

The accused held a valid medical marijuana authorization permitting possession of 45 grams only.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including text messages, packaging of marijuana in multiple baggies, and expert testimony regarding street jargon and drug pricing.

The accused testified that all marijuana was for personal use due to chronic pain management.

The court found the accused guilty of trafficking but acquitted him of the break-in tools charge.

The applicant sought costs following the dismissal of a motion to change brought by the respondent on July 16, 2013.

The applicant was entirely successful in opposing the motion.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the applicant acted reasonably while the respondent's motion was misguided and poorly executed.

The respondent's conduct, including making a surreptitious audio recording of court proceedings and making mean-spirited statements in cost submissions, was found to approach bad faith but not quite reach that threshold.

The respondent brought a motion to continue supervised access to his two children following an order that had set a termination date of February 16, 2014.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought termination of access.

The court reviewed the history of the case, which involved multiple gaps in access spanning nearly five years, the respondent's criminal record including domestic violence convictions and breaches of court orders, his lack of insight into his behavior, and his abandonment of access from May to November 2013.

The court found that while access is generally presumed to be in the best interests of children, the cumulative harm caused by the respondent's pattern of rejection and inconsistency outweighed the benefits of contact.

The motion was dismissed and supervised access was terminated.