Jaclyn Mackenzie

This is a costs endorsement following motions where the court determined primary residence and decision-making responsibility for a child, and ordered the child's return to Ontario from Prince Edward Island.

The applicant mother sought costs against the respondent maternal grandmother and the respondent father.

The court found the mother was largely successful against the maternal grandmother and partially successful against the father.

While the maternal grandmother's conduct was unreasonable, it did not meet the high threshold for a finding of bad faith.

The court awarded fixed costs to the mother against both respondents, taking into account their financial circumstances and allowing for payment over time.

In an uncontested trial, the court addressed parenting, child support, and a restraining order.

The applicant father's claims were struck due to non-compliance.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and permission to travel with the child and obtain government documentation without the father's consent.

Parenting exchanges were ordered to take place at a police station due to high conflict.

The father was ordered to pay child support arrears and prospective child support based on an imputed income.

The mother's request for supervised parenting time and a permanent restraining order was denied, but communication and non-harassment orders were issued.

Costs were awarded to the mother due to the father's bad faith and willful non-compliance.

A 24-year-old first-time offender was convicted of sexual assault against a 16-year-old victim.

The assault occurred when the offender, who was intoxicated, engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with the victim despite repeated verbal objections.

The Crown sought a 12-month custodial sentence, while defence counsel sought a suspended sentence with probation or a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence of imprisonment to be served in the community, finding that rehabilitation and specific deterrence were paramount considerations for a youthful first offender, and that a conditional sentence was consistent with sentencing principles despite the serious nature of the offence.