Joel Kerr

In this joint trial, the Crown charged two defendants with assault causing bodily harm to a third party.

The victim was assaulted in the foyer of her residence in the early morning hours of August 2, 2017.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and determine guilt separately for each accused.

The evidence established that one defendant delivered the blows causing bodily harm (two broken front teeth and a laceration), while the other defendant engaged in a single punch exchange with the victim that caused no significant injury.

The court found that the defendant who delivered the serious blows was guilty as a principal to assault causing bodily harm and also guilty of breaching four probation orders.

The other defendant was found guilty of simple assault only, as the Crown failed to prove she was a party to the more serious assault.

Following a mid-trial settlement of a protracted custody and access dispute, the applicant and respondent each sought costs of $15,000 against the other, and the applicant also sought costs against the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The court dismissed all claims for costs.

The court found that the applicant's unreasonable pursuit of primary residence for three years rebutted the presumption of costs in his favour, while the respondent acted unreasonably by proceeding to trial instead of settling based on her long-held position.

The court also declined to award costs against the OCL, finding no bad faith or patently unreasonable conduct that would justify such an exceptional order.

The Applicant sought a divorce and a restraining order against the Respondent.

Both parties, receiving government assistance and represented by Legal Aid Ontario, had no children, jobs, income, or property to divide.

The Respondent opposed the restraining order, even a mutual no-contact order, despite living in a different city.

The judge expressed strong frustration over the perceived waste of public resources on an easily resolvable issue, citing the Family Law Rules' objectives for efficient case management.

Following the judge's intervention and threat to involve Legal Aid Ontario's Area Director, the parties reached a settlement, agreeing to a mutual no-contact order and an uncontested divorce.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for a two-year-old child who had been in care since birth.

The mother, who had a lengthy history of severe mental health issues, inconsistent compliance with treatment, and limited insight into her condition, sought the return of the child under a supervision order.

The court found that the mother could not consistently meet the child's needs and that a supervision order would not adequately protect the child.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the mother-child relationship was not meaningful and beneficial enough to justify access, which could impair the child's future adoption opportunities.

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault against S.L. (alleged to have occurred between July 15 and August 15, 2010) and one count of sexual assault, one count of invitation to sexual touching, and two counts of sexual interference against S.O. (alleged to have occurred on September 4, 2010).

The charges were tried together as the facts overlapped.

The accused pleaded not guilty to all charges.

The court heard evidence from the two alleged victims, a defence witness, the accused, and a friend of the accused.

The court found the evidence of the two alleged victims credible and consistent, while finding significant inconsistencies and credibility issues with the accused's testimony and defence witnesses.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault against S.L., sexual assault against S.O., sexual interference against S.O., and invitation to sexual touching against S.O. One count of sexual interference was dismissed as it was not a separate act.

In a child protection status review proceeding, the applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking final disposition orders regarding two children.

The court considered whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.

The evidentiary record showed longstanding domestic violence, repeated non‑compliance with court orders, and the parents’ inability to provide safe care despite extensive services and prior interventions.

The responding parent filed no evidentiary materials opposing the motion and relied only on speculation that a trial might produce additional evidence.

The court held that no genuine issue for trial existed and granted summary judgment, ordering custody of one child to the maternal grandparents under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act and Crown wardship without access for the other child.