James E. Weppler

The Children's Aid Society sought leave to withdraw its child protection application concerning two children.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) and the father opposed the withdrawal, arguing that live protection concerns and parental alienation issues required adjudication.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding that the children's best interests required a full factual record and timely determination of outstanding issues.

The court ordered that the child protection application and the parents' Children's Law Reform Act application proceed to a combined trial, ensuring OCL involvement and preserving the option of continued society involvement.

This case concerns a temporary care and custody motion for an Indigenous child, L.L.C., who had been residing with a maternal aunt under a Customary Care Agreement (CCA).

Following the CCA's termination, the child was placed with the father.

Kina Gbezhgomi Child and Family Services initiated a protection application seeking a protection finding and a supervision order with the father.

The court determined that the federal An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families (Federal Act) applies and has paramountcy over provincial legislation (CYFSA), altering the method of analysis for Indigenous children's placements.

Applying the Federal Act's national standards, the court found it was in the child's best interests to be placed with the father, without the need for society supervision, as there were no protection concerns.

The court also ordered continued contact with the maternal aunt and suggested the matter be transitioned to a Children's Law Reform Act application.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference of a person under 16 years of age and three counts of breaching recognizance conditions.

The offences occurred over more than two years, during which the accused engaged in repeated sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl, resulting in two pregnancies.

The court imposed a sentence of 50 months imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody, along with mandatory DNA, SOIRA, and firearms prohibition orders, and discretionary section 161 orders restricting contact with the victim and employment involving minors.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the victim in the neck on August 14, 2017.

The accused pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence agreed on the facts of the assault.

The defence called psychiatric evidence from two experts: Dr. Beth Eayrs and Dr. Maxym Choptiany.

At the initial hearing, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish the defence.

The hearing was reopened to allow for additional evidence.

At the reopened hearing, the court found that although the accused suffered from schizophrenia and likely experienced psychotic symptoms at the time of the offence, the evidence demonstrated that the accused had the capacity to know his actions were morally wrong and proceeded to commit the act anyway.

The court found the accused criminally responsible and convicted him of aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant alleged the accused touched her breasts and vagina while she was passed out after a night of heavy drinking.

The accused denied the contact.

The court found the complainant credible but unreliable due to her intoxication and contradictions from other witnesses regarding key details like sleeping arrangements and interactions.

DNA evidence on the complainant's bra matched the accused, but the defense proposed an innocent transfer through profuse slobbering during repeated social interactions over the drunken weekend.

While finding the innocent transfer implausible, the court could not definitively rule it out, leading to reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the victim in the neck on August 14, 2017.

The accused pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence agreed on the facts of the assault.

The defence called expert psychiatric evidence from Dr. Beth Eayrs, a forensic psychiatrist, who opined that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia and was psychotic at the time of the offence, acting under command hallucinations.

The court found that while the accused may have been experiencing auditory hallucinations, the evidence demonstrated that he had the capacity to know his conduct was morally wrong.

The court rejected the defence and found the accused criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including assault causing bodily harm against his former partner, mischief, theft under $5,000, failure to comply with a probation order, and failure to appear in court.

The sentencing involved consideration of Gladue factors as the accused is a member of the M'Chigeeng First Nation.

The court imposed an 8-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for the first four months, followed by a curfew, and 16 months of probation.

The sentence emphasized denunciation and deterrence while considering the accused's rehabilitative potential and Aboriginal heritage.

The accused was charged with knowingly using a forged document (a cheque) as if it were genuine, contrary to section 368(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and with theft of a cheque belonging to the Sheguiandah First Nation, contrary to section 334(b) of the Criminal Code.

The cheque in question was for $4,730 and was allegedly signed by the Band's Chief and a Band Counsellor.

The court found that while the cheque was stolen and the signatures were forged, it could not determine who committed the theft.

However, the court convicted the accused of knowingly using the forged document because she deposited the cheque into her account without any evidence of entitlement to the funds, and no Band representatives could establish any legitimate claim by her to the money.

The appellant, Adaline Garita Tejado, brought a motion for a stay of an Ontario Court of Justice order dated August 5, 2016, which directed the return of her two children to Webbwood, their former habitual residence.

The appellant had left Webbwood with the children due to domestic violence and was residing in a women's shelter in Mindemoya.

The motion also sought leave to appeal the August 5, 2016 order.

The court granted the stay of the order to return the children, finding that the appeal raised serious questions, the appellant and children would suffer irreparable harm if the stay was not granted, and the balance of convenience favored the appellant, particularly considering the children's best interests and the contradictory nature of the original order which granted the mother interim custody but required the children to return to a home she could not safely inhabit.

The applicant, convicted of sexual interference involving his 14-year-old stepdaughter, challenged the 45-day mandatory minimum sentence under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing it was grossly disproportionate.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, mitigating factors including the applicant's Indigenous status and community recommendations for restorative justice, and aggravating factors such as the breach of trust.

The court found the appropriate sentence for the applicant was 90 days intermittent imprisonment.

The constitutional challenge to the 45-day mandatory minimum was dismissed, as the court found it was not grossly disproportionate, even when considering reasonable hypotheticals.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting his daughter on April 29, 2012.

The complainant testified that the accused came to her basement bedroom early in the morning after picking her up from an all-night party, and sexually touched her without consent.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming he lacked the physical ability to commit the offence due to arthritis, rheumatism, and previous injuries.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and rejected the accused's testimony as evasive.

The court noted that while the complainant had made threats to falsely accuse the accused of rape to obtain money for drugs, these threats were characterized as impudent adolescent remarks lacking serious intent.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused sexually assaulted his daughter.