Jean Claude Dubuisson

The applicant mother brought a Motion to Change seeking sole decision-making responsibility and an order that the respondent father's parenting time remain professionally supervised.

The father had engaged in a persistent pattern of pressuring the children to make false allegations of abuse against the mother and her new partner, leading to multiple unfounded CAS and police investigations.

The court found that the father's ongoing behaviour, driven by unaddressed mental health issues and an unfounded belief that the children were being abused, posed a significant risk of emotional harm to the children.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, ordered that the father's parenting time remain supervised, and issued a restraining order against the father.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and weapons offences due to schizophrenia.

The accused remained clinically stable on injectable medication but continued to use stimulants and denied her substance use disorder.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety due to the risk of decompensation and violence if she stops medication or increases substance use.

The Board ordered a continued conditional discharge but removed the strict abstention and weapons conditions to better assess her ability to manage her consumption in the community.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for an accused previously found not criminally responsible for sexual interference.

The hospital and the Attorney General recommended a conditional discharge, noting the accused's medication compliance and diminished risk, while the accused's counsel sought an absolute discharge.

Applying the Winko threshold, the Board found the accused continues to pose a significant threat to public safety, as he would likely become non-compliant with medication and decompensate without a disposition.

The Board ordered a conditional discharge with a treatment clause under s. 672.55 of the Criminal Code, balancing public safety with the accused's reintegration needs.

Décision sur dépens à la suite d'une motion portant sur la compétence des tribunaux ontariens ou québécois concernant des questions parentales.

Le tribunal ordonne à l’intimée de payer 800 $ au requérant, en raison de la conduite déraisonnable de l’intimée et du succès du requérant, qui était autoreprésenté.

The court considered a summary judgment motion by the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa regarding the child, AM.

The Society sought a final custody order for TR, the father’s partner, but the court found there were significant triable issues, including the child’s Indigenous status, the adequacy of kinship assessments, and the best interests of the child regarding care and access.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the matter was sent to trial.

The member, a registered nurse, faced allegations of professional misconduct for submitting a fraudulent COVID-19 vaccine receipt to her employer, a long-term care facility.

The member admitted to the allegations via an Agreed Statement of Facts.

The Discipline Committee found that the member contravened the standards of practice, signed a false document, and engaged in dishonourable and unprofessional conduct.

The Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, ordering an oral reprimand, a two-month suspension, and terms including meetings with a regulatory expert and employer notification.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought extended society care for four children, aiming for adoption by their maternal grandmother, citing ongoing risks from parental conflict, inattentiveness, and lack of support.

The parents sought the children's return under a supervision order, proposing to live with the father's sister for support.

The court found that while some protection concerns minimally existed, the parents had made significant progress, particularly since the father's sobriety.

The court dismissed the Society's request for extended society care and ordered the children to be placed in the parents' care and custody, subject to a 12-month supervision order, finding this to be in the children's best interests and the least restrictive measure.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for extended society care for four children.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking a trial.

The court applied a highly cautionary approach to summary judgment in child protection matters, noting recent positive changes by the parents and questioning the admissibility and relevance of some of the Society's evidence, particularly police reports.

While dismissing the parents' argument regarding a custody order to the grandmother without her consent, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the best interests of the children, specifically between extended society care and a return to parental care under supervision.

The Society's motion for summary judgment was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of arson to property for setting fire to a Jeep Cherokee.

The appeal challenged the reasonableness of the conviction, arguing misapplication of circumstantial evidence and insufficient reasons from the trial judge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusion of guilt was the only reasonable inference from the circumstantial evidence, which included GPS data placing the appellant's tow truck at the scene and the appellant's suspicious post-offence conduct.

The Court also found the trial judge's reasons, though brief, were sufficient given the straightforward nature of the case and the lack of contradictory evidence or complex legal issues.

The applicant, Pauline Gay, sought costs after successfully obtaining a more favourable order than her settlement offer.

The court found that while the applicant's offer did not meet the formal requirements of Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for full indemnity costs, it could still be considered in determining costs.

The respondent's conduct during litigation, including lack of candour and credibility, and failure to file a detailed bill of costs, was also considered.

The court awarded the applicant fixed costs of $25,000, payable immediately.

The applicant sought a divorce, child support, and equalization of net family property.

The court found the respondent's evidence regarding alleged debts to third parties and the value of pottery retained by the applicant to be not credible, excluding them from the equalization calculation.

The respondent was ordered to pay an equalization payment of $74,804.80, child support arrears of $15,288, and adjustments for a joint line of credit.

A divorce order was granted.

A father's motion for interim access to his four-year-old daughter was granted after a 22-month denial of access by the mother, who alleged chronic severe violence.

The court, prioritizing the child's best interests and the risk of relationship extinguishment, ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, and a gradual, supervised access schedule for the father, transitioning to unsupervised.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed for an assessment.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of similar facts regarding the defendant's pattern of corporal discipline against his daughters.

The defendant was charged with assault and assault with a weapon against his daughter Médijean, allegedly occurring between January 1, 2008 and March 29, 2016.

The Crown sought to introduce testimony from the defendant's other daughter, Amivi, regarding similar beatings she experienced in Ghana before the family immigrated to Canada.

The court applied the test from R. v. Handy to determine admissibility of similar fact evidence and found that the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, particularly given that the trial was before a judge alone rather than a jury.

Following a prior judgment, the applicants sought an order requiring the respondent to pay costs incurred for a motion heard on June 17, 2014.

The court found the applicants had largely succeeded and were therefore entitled to costs.

Because the applicants represented themselves at the hearing, full solicitor’s fees were not awarded.

However, the court accepted that legal consultation occurred and fixed legal fees and disbursements in modest amounts.

The respondent was ordered to pay the assessed costs.

Members of a community association brought an application alleging mismanagement and lack of financial transparency by the association’s president and executive leadership.

The applicants relied on an audit report identifying deficiencies in financial controls, missing documentation for expenditures, and risks of fraud.

The respondent denied the allegations but provided limited evidentiary support and attempted to rely on materials filed late.

The court found the applicants’ concerns credible and concluded that significant governance and transparency issues existed.

The court ordered the association to convene a general meeting, present financial accounts with supporting documentation, appoint independent auditors, and establish a new statute‑review commission, but declined to dissolve the electoral commission.

The offender was sentenced following convictions for sexual assault, forcible confinement, uttering death threats, impaired driving, and dangerous driving arising from an incident in which the complainant was confined in a vehicle, threatened with death, and sexually assaulted in a remote area while attempting to return home.

The complainant escaped from the moving vehicle and was rescued by passing motorists, after which the offender engaged in dangerous and impaired driving while fleeing.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the offender’s criminal record, commission of offences while on bail, the complainant’s vulnerability, and the risk posed to the public.

Finding that previous non‑custodial sanctions had failed, the court imposed custodial sentences with concurrent and consecutive components.

Ancillary orders including DNA collection, sex offender registration, weapons prohibition, and a driving prohibition were also imposed.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, all parties agreed the children remained in need of protection due to parental incapacity and sought a permanent care plan under s. 57.1.

Competing plans proposed placement with maternal grandparents, with the paternal grandmother, or maintenance of split placements.

After reviewing extensive evidence on caregiving capacity, family conflict, cultural and religious issues, and the children’s best interests, the court ordered shared legal custody between the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandmother on an alternating weekly schedule.

The court also set terms for religious holidays, birthday exchanges, and transition arrangements.

The appellant was convicted of assault and his summary conviction appeal was dismissed.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, failed to apply the W.(D.) framework, and should have drawn an adverse inference from a lack of corroborating evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the summary conviction appeal judge's review, noting that credibility assessments are the province of the trial judge.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.

The appellant was convicted of assault and his summary conviction appeal to the Superior Court was dismissed.

He appealed to the Court of Appeal, arguing that the trial judge erred in assessing the complainant's credibility, failed to properly apply the W.D. framework, and should have drawn an adverse inference from the lack of corroborating evidence.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the summary conviction appeal judge's conclusion that the trial judge's findings were reasonable and fully supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed their convictions for conspiracy to import drugs, importing, and attempted possession for the purpose of trafficking.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals against the conspiracy and importation convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the trial judge's conclusions and rejecting arguments regarding the misuse of disclosure and directed verdicts.

However, the Court applied the Kienapple rule to stay the convictions for attempted possession for the purpose of trafficking, as a single act underlay the multiple charges.