Gordon Scott Campbell

Following a successful appeal that increased the father's parenting time, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine the parenting schedule for the summer of 2021.

The mother opposed the father's request for time, citing the children's enrollment in summer camps and a planned trip.

The court found the mother's attitude concerning and ordered a schedule that provided the father with three weeks of parenting time, requiring the cancellation of some recently booked camps to prioritize the children's time with their father.

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's order granting the respondent mother sole custody, permitting her to relocate with the children to Montreal, setting parenting time, and awarding costs.

The father also brought a motion to introduce fresh evidence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to introduce fresh evidence, finding it was offered to test the trial judge's conclusions in hindsight rather than to update the court on the children's circumstances.

The court upheld the trial judge's decisions on custody and relocation, finding no palpable and overriding errors.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part regarding parenting time, finding the trial judge failed to give sufficient weight to the maximum contact principle and the father's ability to teach the children about their Inuit heritage.

The court expanded the father's parenting time to include extended alternate weekends and significant holiday and summer blocks.

The applicant, a musician in the Canadian Forces, sought judicial review of a decision by the Final Authority rejecting his grievance regarding delayed promotion due to a change in ranking policy.

The applicant argued the decision was unreasonable for failing to engage with the Military Grievances External Review Committee's findings.

The Federal Court granted the application for judicial review, relying on its reasons in a companion case, Denneboom v Canada, finding the Final Authority's decision unreasonable.

The matter was returned to the Final Authority for reconsideration.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his motion to change spousal and child support orders.

He argued a material change in circumstances due to deteriorating health and an inability to work as an insurance broker.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's finding that the appellant was intentionally underemployed to avoid support obligations, noting that the medical evidence could have been presented at the original trial but was withheld as a trial strategy.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant mother appealed an order placing her two children in extended society care with no access.

The children, who are Métis, were apprehended due to exposure to domestic violence and adult sexual activity.

The Court of Appeal upheld the extended society care order, finding no error in the lower courts' assessment of the children's need for protection or the statutory time limits.

However, applying the Kawartha framework, the Court found the trial judge erred by placing the burden on the mother to prove access was beneficial.

The Court allowed the appeal in part, granting the mother monthly photograph access as it was in the children's best interests and would not impair adoption prospects.

The appellant appealed an order striking his answer and amended answer in a family law proceeding due to his ongoing failure to comply with court orders regarding costs, household expenses, and financial disclosure.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding the appellant's non-compliance to be wilful and egregious.

The court emphasized that striking pleadings is an exceptional remedy but was justified here given the appellant's repeated disregard for his fundamental obligations.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on charges of assault with a weapon, breaking and entering, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The Crown argued that the trial judge erred in law by assessing the evidence piecemeal rather than considering it holistically, thereby failing to appreciate how the cumulative evidence built the strength of the Crown's case.

While the appellate court found that the trial judge did commit an error of law in her approach to the evidence, the appeal was dismissed because the victim—a Crown witness who knew the respondent well—testified with certainty that the attacker was not the respondent.

This independent exculpatory evidence raised a reasonable doubt that could not be overcome by the trial judge's error.

The father appealed a trial judgment permitting the mother to relocate with two children (ages five and seven) from Orleans, Ontario to Montreal, Quebec.

The father moved for a stay of the trial judgment pending appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion for a stay, finding that the grounds of appeal were not particularly strong, that the father would not suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured allowing the relocation to proceed.

The trial judgment had granted the father increased access, including overnight access on alternating weekends commencing February 2020, and the mother had made arrangements to facilitate the father's continued relationship with the children.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for criminal harassment, arguing his guilty plea was not informed.

He believed there was a joint submission on sentence that would spare him a criminal record, confusing an agreement on facts with an agreement on sentence.

Applying the framework from R. v. Wong, the Superior Court of Justice found the appellant established a reasonable probability he would have opted for a trial had he known he risked a criminal record.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction quashed, and a new trial ordered.

The applicant mother sought a stay of interlocutory orders that found her in contempt for relocating the child's residence without notice and transferred interim sole custody and primary residence to the respondent father.

The court applied the modified RJR-Macdonald test for stays in child parenting cases, prioritizing the child's best interests.

While the applicant established a serious issue to be tried regarding procedural fairness, she failed to demonstrate irreparable harm or that the balance of convenience favoured a stay, especially given the impending trial date.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The father brought a motion to change a final order regarding access to the parties' child, arguing that the child's commencement of school drastically reduced his access time.

The mother sought a variation for child support and contribution to special expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances for both access and support.

The court ordered a revised access schedule granting the father more frequent access during the school year and extended summer access.

The court also imputed income to the father at minimum wage, finding him intentionally unemployed, and ordered him to pay child support and share special expenses equally, with a deduction for his increased transportation costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's decision to order his surrender to the United States of America pursuant to the Extradition Act.

The applicant, a Mohawk of Akwesasne with Aboriginal heritage, argued that the Minister failed to give proper consideration to Gladue principles and his Charter rights.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Minister's decision, finding that she had properly considered all relevant factors, including the applicant's Aboriginal background and Gladue principles, and that the applicant's circumstances were distinguishable from prior cases.

The court applied a reasonableness standard of review and found the Minister's decision fell within a range of acceptable outcomes.

The applicant, a certified general accountant, sought judicial review of decisions by the Professional Conduct Tribunal and Appeal Tribunal finding him guilty of professional misconduct, revoking his membership, and imposing fines and costs.

The Divisional Court held that the Appeal Tribunal lacked standing to argue the merits of the application.

On the merits, the Court found the Liability Decision unreasonable because it lacked adequate reasons and relied on purely formulaic, conclusory credibility findings without analyzing the evidence.

The decisions were set aside and the matter remitted for a rehearing before a differently constituted panel.

The defendant appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the plaintiff the balance owing on a masonry contract and dismissing her counterclaim for faulty work.

On appeal, the defendant argued the trial judge demonstrated bias by disclosing a prior acquaintance with one of the plaintiff's witnesses and made palpable and overriding errors of fact.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no appearance of bias as the trial judge had repeatedly invited submissions on the issue and the defendant's representative had encouraged him to remain.

The court also found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's factual findings, which were supported by the evidence.

The appellant father appealed a Family Court order granting the mother sole custody of their two children with supervised access to him, and allowing the Children's Aid Society to withdraw its protection application.

The father argued the motions judge erred in finding a material change in circumstances, hearing the matters simultaneously, allowing the withdrawal without a full hearing, and improperly relying on a section 54 assessment report.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the motions judge properly applied the test for varying custody due to parental alienation, correctly exercised discretion to hear the matters together, held an appropriate hearing for the withdrawal, and did not improperly rely on the assessment report.

The moving party sought an extension of time to appeal two orders in a high-conflict matrimonial proceeding: an order striking his pleadings for failure to pay costs, and a subsequent final order from an uncontested trial.

The moving party argued that as a self-represented litigant, he did not understand the implications of the order striking his pleadings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party had a lawyer present when the consequences were discussed, failed to move promptly after learning of the final order, and failed to demonstrate that the final order resulted in any real injustice or substantive errors.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's prior convictions for sexual assault from 1990 as similar fact evidence.

The accused is charged with sexual offences against a complainant with cognitive disabilities.

The Crown sought to adduce evidence that the prior victims also had mental disabilities.

The court found that the Crown failed to provide sufficient cogent detail about the circumstances of the prior offences, rendering the evidence merely indicative of general propensity.

The application was dismissed as the evidence lacked probative value and its admission would be highly prejudicial.

The defendants were charged with aiding and abetting others to enter Canada without appearing for examination before a Canada Border Services Officer, contrary to section 124(1)(a) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

The defendants brought a constitutional challenge under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and sections 15, 7, and 2(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendants claimed an aboriginal right to mobility within Mohawk territory at Akwesasne for family and community purposes without reporting at the border, and alleged that the reporting requirements were discriminatory and violated their liberty and freedom of association.

The court dismissed all constitutional challenges and found the defendants guilty.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interlocutory family law decision that imposed a new interim parenting regime.

The court considered the test for granting leave to appeal under the Courts of Justice Act and applicable procedural rules.

It found there were serious questions about whether the motion judge exceeded jurisdiction by making substantive orders not requested in the pleadings and without a full evidentiary record or opportunity for cross-examination.

The court held that the circumstances raised concerns about natural justice and procedural fairness.

Leave to appeal was granted and a temporary stay of the impugned order was issued pending the appeal.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought disciplinary proceedings against a member who accessed pornographic material on a school laptop and failed to adequately control student access to the device.

The member pleaded guilty to professional misconduct and the parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Penalty.

The Discipline Committee accepted the guilty plea and the joint submission, ordering a reprimand and a two-month suspension of the member's certificate.

The Committee declined the College's request to publish the member's name, finding that publication without the name, combined with the suspension and reprimand, sufficiently protected the public interest and served as a deterrent.