John S. Fregeau

The applicant sought a divorce, retroactive spousal support, and an unequal division of net family property in an uncontested hearing.

The respondent did not appear.

The court granted the divorce and ordered retroactive spousal support based on the parties' actual incomes, declining to impute income to the respondent for periods he was on unpaid sick leave due to alcohol dependency.

The court ordered the immediate sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home and a division of the respondent's pension at source.

The court also ordered an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6)(h) of the Family Law Act, finding it would be unconscionable to require the applicant to pay an equalization payment after she depleted her RRSPs to maintain the matrimonial home.

The defendant, charged with sexual assault, applied for a stay of proceedings due to the police losing an audio tape of the complainant's initial statement.

The court found the loss was due to unacceptable negligence but dismissed the stay application, concluding the defendant could still make full answer and defence using the officer's contemporaneous notes and a later video statement.

The defendant also sought disclosure of various records.

The court ordered the Crown to disclose the complainant's criminal record and inquire into other complaints made by her, but held that police occurrence reports from unrelated investigations were third-party records requiring an application under s. 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The court also declined to order the Crown to provide a binding witness list.

Following a family law mobility trial where the applicant father was successful in having the children reside primarily with him, he sought costs of $77,664.53 based on an offer to settle.

The respondent mother, who had limited financial means, argued for no costs or a nominal amount.

The court declined to apply the strict costs consequences of the offer to settle, noting the difficult nature of mobility cases and the reasonableness of both parties' positions.

Considering the respondent's modest means and the costs she would incur to exercise access, the court fixed costs at $15,000 payable to the applicant.

The Crown appealed an acquittal for impaired operation of a motor vehicle under s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge had accepted evidence that the accused displayed typical indicia of impairment but framed the legal issue as whether the accused’s conduct represented a marked departure from that of a normal person.

The appeal court held this was an error of law because the correct standard is whether the accused’s ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired to any degree, ranging from slight to great.

The trial judge also erred by treating a First Nations peacekeeper as a peace officer and drawing adverse inferences from the absence of an immediate arrest.

Applying the correct legal test, the court concluded the necessary factual findings had been made and substituted a conviction.

The moving party brought a motion for interim relief within a motion to change a final order, seeking an increase in spousal support from $590 per month to approximately $1,500 per month pending determination of the variation application.

The moving party, suffering from advanced Parkinson’s disease and unable to work, argued that the responding party’s increased income and his ongoing need justified an interim increase.

The court reviewed the governing principles for interim variation of final support orders, including the requirement to establish a prima facie case for variation together with hardship or urgency.

Although the responding party’s income had increased modestly, the court found no evidence of increased expenses or uncovered medical costs and concluded that the threshold test was not met.

The motion for interim variation was therefore dismissed.

Following dismissal of a motion challenging confirmation of a case management master's report, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs relying on an earlier offer to settle under Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court held that although the offer technically met Rule 49.10 requirements, it lacked meaningful compromise and therefore declined to strictly apply the rule’s presumptive cost consequences.

Considering the principles of reasonableness, the complexity of the motion, the volume of materials, and factors under Rule 57.01 and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court fixed costs at a global amount.

Costs were awarded on a discretionary basis rather than strictly under the offer‑to‑settle regime.

The appellant father appealed a child protection disposition order granting Crown wardship with no access regarding two children.

He argued the trial judge erred in fact by ignoring evidence that parental substance abuse and domestic violence had ceased and erred in law by placing undue emphasis on continuity of care under s. 37(3)7 of the Child and Family Services Act while failing to properly balance other statutory factors, including cultural identity considerations for Indigenous children under s. 37(4).

The court held that no palpable and overriding factual error or legal error was demonstrated and that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant statutory factors.

The court found that the evidence regarding the harm of disrupting the long‑term foster placement supported the disposition.

The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

The accused brought an application to quash a search warrant authorizing the search of his residence and vehicle for firearms, and to exclude evidence obtained during the search under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The police had obtained the warrant after the accused admitted to firing a 9 mm handgun at intruders and stated the gun was in his car.

The court found there was insufficient evidence to justify searching the residence, as the information only connected the offences to the handgun in the vehicle.

The court held the search of the residence violated the accused's s. 8 Charter rights.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded the breach was serious and profoundly intrusive, and excluded the evidence found in the residence, including a prohibited rifle, under s. 24(2).