Harvey Brownstone

The accused was found guilty of threatening death following a trial on November 3, 2017.

The incident occurred at Queen's Park when the accused left two duffle bags unattended in front of the Whitney Block west doors and made statements to security officers indicating a threat to the Legislature building.

The Crown sought to have the threat classified as an act of terrorism under section 83.01 of the Criminal Code.

The court rejected the terrorism designation, finding that the accused's mental health issues, rather than any ideological, political, or religious purpose, motivated the conduct.

The court sentenced the accused to six months time served and two years probation with various conditions, including mental health treatment and restrictions on attending Ontario Legislative buildings.

The Crown charged three defendants with obtaining credit by false pretence and knowingly causing a mortgage broker to act upon fraudulent rental agreements in connection with a $639,000 mortgage application.

Mohammed Raja was acquitted of both charges.

Saira Khan was acquitted of the second charge but convicted of obtaining credit by false pretence based on her knowledge and acquiescence to false income representations.

Michael Majeed was convicted of both obtaining credit by false pretence and knowingly causing the broker to act upon forged rental agreements, and acquitted of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The court found that Majeed actively orchestrated the fraud by providing false rental agreements he knew to be fraudulent, while Khan's liability stemmed from her silence and signature on the mortgage commitment document despite knowing her income was misrepresented.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship for twin brothers who had been in temporary care since July 2012.

The children were placed in a boarding house in the Netherlands by their mother in August 2011, and subsequently returned to Canada through Dutch child protection proceedings.

The mother failed to pay boarding house fees and was unavailable to provide care upon the children's arrival in Toronto.

The court found the children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act and granted Crown wardship.

The children, who were approaching 18 years of age, supported the Society's motion and wished to become Crown wards to access the Independent Living Program.

The court rejected the mother's Charter rights arguments as lacking any air of reality and addressed the mother's late request for a bilingual hearing, finding it was an obstructionist tactic and that the mother lacked sufficient French language fluency to invoke section 126 of the Courts of Justice Act.

In a child protection disposition hearing, the court determined that a child apprehended at birth and in foster care for over 16 months should be made a Crown ward without access to the mother.

The mother proposed placing the child with a friend as an alternative to the Society's adoption plan, but the proposed caregiver had not met the child, lacked adequate documentation of her circumstances, and the assessment process was incomplete.

The court found that the mother's plan was not sufficiently viable and that Crown wardship for adoption purposes was in the child's best interests.

The court also declined to grant access to the mother, finding that the relationship was not sufficiently beneficial and meaningful to the child.

A child protection trial concerning a child born in 2011 who was apprehended shortly after birth due to serious concerns about the mother's parenting capacity (ADHD, FASD, prior Crown wardship of first child), the father's significant cognitive disabilities and criminal history (charged with aggravated assault on a baby he was babysitting), and the paternal grandmother's extensive child protection history involving abuse and neglect.

The court found the child to be in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of physical harm.

The father and paternal grandmother sought placement of the child in their care under Society supervision, but the court rejected both plans as inadequate.

The child was made a Crown ward without access to facilitate adoption, as this was found to be the least intrusive option meeting the child's best interests.

Consolidated child protection trial involving three children (S.J., N.J., and D.J.) where the Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The father had a history of violence and anger management issues, including a guilty plea to assaulting two of the children with a belt.

The mother was passive and failed to protect the children from the father's emotional and physical abuse.

Despite both parents' participation in parenting programs, the court found they had made little progress and posed ongoing risks to the children's safety and wellbeing.

The court ordered all three children to be made Crown wards without access for adoption.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order making a child a Crown ward.

The child had been apprehended in December 2009, placed with the mother in February 2011 under supervision, and re-apprehended in April 2011 after the mother violated multiple court-ordered conditions.

The mother sought to resume care; the father sought a custody order for the paternal grandmother in England.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the motion, making the child a Crown ward with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The court found the mother's plan to resume care had no air of reality given her pattern of emotional instability, poor judgment, inability to comply with court orders, and failure to engage in meaningful counselling or supportive services.