J. Nadeau

This case involved cross-motions to change a 2015 final order concerning the primary residence, decision-making responsibility, parenting time, and child support for the parties' daughter.

The daughter had been living with the applicant father since March 2020 due to the respondent mother's mental health breakdown.

The applicant sought sole decision-making and primary residence, while the respondent sought the daughter's return to her care.

The court prioritized the child's best interests, giving significant weight to her strong views and preferences to remain with her father due to anxiety related to past events and the mother's ongoing mental health issues.

The court granted the applicant sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, ordered supervised parenting time for the respondent (initially institutional, then with the maternal grandmother), and terminated the applicant's child support obligation as of March 2020.

The respondent's request for child support from the applicant was denied due to her limited income and lack of evidence for imputing income.

The accused, Robert Kevin Rouse, sought a detention review after being in custody for over 90 days.

The application, initially a bail review, proceeded as a detention review by consent.

The accused argued for release based on a material change in circumstances, specifically a reduction in the seriousness of one drug charge (fentanyl to MDA) and the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in correctional facilities.

The Crown opposed, citing the accused's extensive criminal record and history of non-compliance with release terms.

The court found that a combination of a new, credible surety plan (the accused's father offering constant supervision) and the public health concerns related to COVID-19 in detention facilities justified granting judicial interim release.

The defendant was sentenced for possession of crack cocaine for the purpose of trafficking (5.5 ounces) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought 2.5 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a creative sentencing approach combining an intermittent sentence on the drug charge with a conditional sentence on the proceeds charge.

The court rejected the defence proposal, finding no exceptional circumstances warranted departure from established sentencing ranges.

The court imposed 15 months imprisonment on the trafficking charge and 6 months concurrent on the proceeds charge, followed by 30 months probation with 160 hours community service.