Jason Timms

The court upheld vacating a certificate of pending litigation and findings that the mortgagee had taken vacant peaceable possession before sale.

It also dismissed the respondent’s motion to quash, holding the appeal was not manifestly abusive.

A corporate defendant was convicted of failing to ensure prescribed occupational health and safety measures at its manufacturing facility, resulting in a worker sustaining four finger amputations.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentencing recommendation of $35,000.

The court rejected the joint submission as not being in the public interest, finding that the parties failed to adequately account for inflation when relying on sentencing authorities that were more than five years old.

The court imposed a fine of $55,000, adjusted to reflect post-pandemic inflation from 2015 to 2024.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing his application to dispense with his seven-year-old stepson's consent to adoption.

The child, who has Autism Spectrum Disorder, believes the appellant is his biological father.

The application judge had discounted the mother's and appellant's evidence regarding the risk of emotional harm to the child if his consent were sought, citing their interest in the outcome.

The Superior Court of Justice found this to be an error of law, holding that a competent caregiver can provide reliable evidence of emotional harm.

The appeal was allowed, and the child's consent to the adoption was dispensed with.

The applicant, P.L., sought to adopt his seven-year-old stepson, L., and applied to dispense with L.'s consent to the adoption under section 180(9) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The grounds for dispensing consent were that obtaining it would cause emotional harm or that L. lacked capacity due to developmental disability (Autism, ADHD).

The court reviewed expert evidence from Dr. Knoll and testimony from the applicant and L.'s mother, J.L. The court found the evidence equivocal regarding L.'s capacity to consent and insufficient to demonstrate that seeking consent would cause serious emotional harm as defined by the Act.

The application to dispense with consent was dismissed, and the adoption application was held for 60 days for L.'s consent to be filed, failing which it would be dismissed for want of prosecution.