Jean Claude Dubuisson

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 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.