Joanne Clouston

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing death and bodily harm after a fatal head-on collision on Highway 17.

The accused attempted to pass a line of slow-moving traffic in treacherous winter conditions, driving in the oncoming lane up a hill where the centre lines were obscured by snow.

He collided with an oncoming vehicle, resulting in the deaths of two children and serious injuries to their mother.

The court found that while the accused's decision to pass in such conditions was a marked departure from the standard of care, it did not amount to the marked and substantial departure required for criminal negligence.

The accused was found guilty of the included offences of dangerous driving causing death and bodily harm.

The Applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent Society failed to give him a chance to be heard regarding his child protection concerns between 1994 and 2000.

The Applicant had repeatedly reported that his child was being abused by the mother and her partner, but the Society did not remove the child until 2000.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while there was communication between the parties, the Society's decisions to leave the child in the mother's care for years suggested the Applicant was not truly heard.

The Board granted the application and ordered the Society to provide the Applicant with his complete, redacted file from 1994 to the present.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm offences after a .22 calibre rifle was discharged four times in a hospital parking lot, striking the tires of three parked vehicles.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including video surveillance tracking the accused's vehicle and expert forensic evidence matching the spent casings to a rifle found in the accused's possession upon arrest.

The court found the circumstantial evidence proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the shooter.

The accused was found guilty of careless use of a firearm and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, while the charge of discharging a firearm with recklessness was adjourned to address an error in the indictment.

Following the dismissal of the parents' appeal in a child protection matter, the successful Society sought costs.

The parents argued that costs should not be awarded in child welfare proceedings and that they acted in good faith.

The court found that the parents engaged in bad faith litigation by making baseless allegations of professional misconduct, racism, and collusion against the Society's counsel and the court.

To express disapproval of this reprehensible conduct, the court awarded the Society substantial indemnity costs fixed at $44,703.60.

The applicant child protection society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection under ss. 74(2)(h) and 74(2)(i) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, due to parental mental health, substance use, neglect of medical needs, and unsanitary home conditions.

The respondent mother opposed the application.

The court found the children were not in need of protection under the pleaded grounds of emotional harm but found them in need of protection under ss. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) due to the parents' failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise, or protect the children, and a pattern of such behavior, particularly concerning unsanitary living conditions and exposure to adult conflict.

This decision addresses a voir dire application by the Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services to admit out-of-court utterances made by two young children (ages 7 and 5) in a child protection proceeding.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule from R. v. Khan, assessing both necessity and threshold reliability.

The court found that requiring the children to testify would cause emotional harm, satisfying necessity.

It admitted statements made to child protection workers due to their training, contemporaneous notes, and lack of fabrication motive.

However, statements reported by the children's grandmother were deemed inadmissible due to reliability concerns.

The court also admitted the "voice of the children" memo from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, but cautioned against counsel acting as a witness and recommended best practices for future interviews.

This is a sentencing decision for Skye Blackburde, an Indigenous woman, who pleaded guilty to impaired driving causing the death of Marcella Jourdain.

The incident involved high blood alcohol and cannabis levels, reckless driving at excessive speed (147 km/h on a gravel road with an 80 km/h limit), and prior related driving convictions.

The court considered significant aggravating factors, including the accused's criminal record and dangerous driving, alongside substantial mitigating factors.

These mitigating factors included her late but genuine guilty plea, sincere remorse, and extensive rehabilitative efforts, including successful completion of residential treatment and active participation in community aftercare, leading to a pro-social lifestyle and employment.

The court also gave due weight to Gladue principles, acknowledging her horrific upbringing and its impact on her moral culpability.

While emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives, the court balanced these with rehabilitation and the Gladue factors, ultimately imposing a six-year custodial sentence, reduced to three years and eleven months after accounting for pre-trial custody, treatment time, and restrictive bail conditions.