J. Paul R. Howard

The accused, a 29-year-old pizzeria owner, was charged with sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching involving a 13-year-old complainant.

The accused admitted to the sexual acts but raised a mistake of age defence, claiming he believed the complainant was 16.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as not credible and found that he failed to take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age, ignoring multiple 'red flags' such as her brother's age and her school grade.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The offender, Cheng Sun, was convicted by a jury of manslaughter in the death of his wife, Weqiong Du-Sun, after initially being charged with second-degree murder.

The sentencing judge considered the circumstances of the offence, including the jury's implied finding of provocation by a knife threat, and the offender's personal background, lack of criminal record, and demonstrated remorse.

Aggravating factors included the domestic violence context, the brutality of the attack (multiple blunt force injuries and strangulation), the victim's social vulnerability, and the devastating impact on her daughter.

The Crown sought 11-12 years, while the defence sought no more than 7 years.

The court imposed a total sentence of nine years' incarceration, with credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion for the immediate return and interim sole custody of her two young children, alleging the respondent father had withheld them since April 4, 2020.

The mother raised serious concerns about the father's substance abuse, erratic behavior, and a video showing him brandishing a gun.

Despite proper service and court directives, the respondent father failed to participate in the proceedings.

The court, proceeding in the father's absence, found the matter urgent, granted interim sole custody to the mother, ordered the immediate return of the children, and included police enforcement clauses due to the serious safety concerns.

Other non-urgent claims, such as drug testing, paternity declaration, and costs, were adjourned to a case conference.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to establish parenting arrangements for the parties' youngest child, Stewart, during the COVID-19 pandemic, after the applicant father unilaterally withheld access.

The court reaffirmed the presumption that existing parenting arrangements should continue, subject to public health directives, and found no valid reason for the father to deny access.

A temporary order was issued codifying the agreed-upon alternate weekend and mid-week access schedule for the mother, with make-up access to be resolved by counsel.

The order also included non-disparagement clauses and clarified transportation responsibilities.

Other claims, including interim custody, child support arrears, and costs, were deemed non-urgent.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking sole custody of his 15-year-old son, Quinn, child support, and other financial and administrative orders.

The motion was initially deemed urgent due to the COVID-19 pandemic, but the court reconsidered this finding after reviewing all materials.

The court determined that most of the father's claims were not urgent under the strict COVID-19 urgency threshold.

While Quinn had moved to live with his father, the mother did not challenge this de facto arrangement, negating the urgency of a custody order.

The court ordered Quinn to remain enrolled in his current school in Chatham due to his special needs and the ongoing school closures.

The court also issued a mutual non-disparagement order, criticizing the father for involving Quinn in the litigation by submitting a purported affidavit from the child.

All other claims for relief, including child support and costs, were adjourned to a case conference.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion to establish parenting arrangements for a child, S.J.M.B., after the applicant father unilaterally withheld access due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, found the matter urgent under the "Notice to the Profession" guidelines, as it involved the alleged wrongful retention of a child and a unilateral alteration of the status quo.

The court set a schedule for the parties to deliver materials for the motion, reserving the right to reconsider urgency once all materials are filed.

The applicant father filed an urgent motion to change a final order to obtain sole custody of his 15-year-old son, Quinn, alleging emotional and physical abuse.

Operating under the Superior Court of Justice's COVID-19 emergency protocols, the court found the matter urgent due to the allegations concerning the child's safety and well-being.

The court directed the applicant to file a revised, sworn affidavit providing specific details and to serve the respondent, while reserving the right to reconsider urgency after the respondent's material is filed.

Detailed procedural directions for electronic filing and service were also provided to facilitate the hearing during the suspension of regular court operations.

The applicant, charged with importing and trafficking fentanyl, brought a Charter application alleging his ss. 8 and 9 rights were violated during his arrest and the subsequent seizure and search of his cellphone.

The police had conducted a controlled delivery of a package containing fentanyl to a residence where the applicant was found in close proximity to the package shortly after it was opened.

The court found the police had reasonable grounds for the arrest based on the totality of the circumstances.

The court also upheld the seizure of the cellphone as a valid search incident to arrest and found the subsequent search warrants were properly issued.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent on four counts of uttering death threats.

The trial judge had dismissed the charges, finding that the Crown had not established the actus reus or mens rea, concluding that the statements were "crazy talk" or "blowing off steam" given the respondent's physical injuries and mental state.

The appellate court dismissed the Crown's appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings, emphasizing the deference owed to a trial judge's factual assessments and application of legal standards to facts, and finding no palpable and overriding error.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change seeking retroactive variation of child and spousal support based on a significant increase in the respondent father's income.

The court found a material change in circumstances, as the father's income had increased from $96,000 to over $290,000.

Child support was varied retroactively to 2015 due to the father's failure to disclose his increased income.

Spousal support was also increased, but only retroactively to the date the application was commenced, with a minimum-wage income imputed to the mother.

In a pre-trial voir dire for a second-degree murder charge, the Crown and defence brought applications regarding the admissibility of evidence.

The court found the accused's statements to police were voluntary and that his s. 10(b) Charter rights were not violated, as police took reasonable steps to ensure he understood his rights despite a language barrier.

However, the court dismissed the Crown's application to admit the deceased's text messages to her daughter under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, finding the statements lacked threshold reliability.

The offender, a 26-year-old first-time offender, was convicted of unauthorized possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and carrying a concealed weapon after fleeing from police.

The court considered the offender's positive pre-sentence report, lack of criminal record, and motive of self-protection against the aggravating factor of possessing a loaded firearm while fleeing.

Finding the offender's conduct fell between a mere licensing infraction and truly criminal conduct, the court imposed a sentence of 29 months' imprisonment.

The appellant, Christopher Joseph Battisti, appealed his conviction for uttering threats to cause death or bodily harm and his subsequent sentence.

The appeal challenged the trial judge's assessment of credibility, alleged misapprehension of evidence, sufficiency of reasons, and the fitness of the imposed sentence, particularly a three-year probation term with a travel notification condition.

The Superior Court of Justice, sitting as a summary conviction appeal court, found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or credibility, nor in the application of the criminal burden of proof.

The court also determined that the trial judge's reasons were sufficient for meaningful appellate review and that the probation condition, being protective rather than punitive, was not demonstrably unfit.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

T.D. was convicted of sexual assault and extortion against his spouse, T.K., by repeatedly threatening to withdraw her immigration sponsorship and have her deported.

The court considered aggravating factors including abuse of spouse, abuse of a position of trust and authority due to T.K.'s vulnerable immigration status, and a pattern of abuse.

Mitigating factors included a minimal criminal record and a traumatic upbringing, though mental health issues were not sufficiently established to explain the conduct.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence.

A global sentence of 40 months imprisonment was imposed, with sentences for sexual assault (40 months) and extortion (14 months) to run concurrently due to their inextricable nexus as part of a single endeavour to obtain sexual favours.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year Sex Offender Registry order, mandatory DNA collection, a no-contact order, forfeiture of an offence-related cellphone, and a 10-year firearm prohibition.

The plaintiff, a former retail sales representative, brought an action for wrongful dismissal and mental distress under simplified procedure.

The action settled on the first day of trial for $35,000 in damages.

The parties could not agree on costs, leading to this endorsement.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs based on Rule 49.10, claiming the settlement was a "judgment as favourable." The court rejected this, finding Rule 49.10 inapplicable as the offer was accepted before trial and no judgment was rendered.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis, considering factors under Rule 57.01, including the principle of indemnity, complexity, amount recovered, proportionality, and the defendant's late acceptance of the offer.

The court reduced the plaintiff's claimed fees and disbursements, particularly for photocopying and time spent on the costs issue itself, and awarded $21,244 in total costs.

This case involves two motions within the context of a father's motion to change a final parenting order.

The applicant father sought to confirm interim parenting arrangements for the two children, while the respondent mother moved to strike the father's affidavit containing a surreptitiously recorded telephone conversation with the maternal grandmother.

The court granted the mother's motion to strike the recorded evidence, citing public policy against surreptitious recordings in family law, the involvement of a third party, and the hearsay nature of the evidence.

The court also granted the father's motion, confirming the de facto parenting schedule of alternate weekends with the mother (supervised) and the remaining time with the father, finding a material change in circumstances and that this arrangement served the children's best interests, particularly for the younger child requiring stability.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The applicants, William Grantmyre and Rivard's Sawmill Builders' Supply Co. Limited, sought an interim injunction to restrain the Bank of Nova Scotia from selling a property under power of sale.

Grantmyre, who acquired title to the property for nominal consideration after the mortgage default and notice of sale, argued he should have received notice of the mortgage enforcement proceedings.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that Grantmyre failed to establish a serious question to be tried, irreparable harm, or that the balance of convenience favored granting the injunction.

The court also raised concerns about Grantmyre's credibility and found his transfer of title was an attempt to evade the mortgage action.

This is an application by Sophie Belleau for a stay of a one-year driving prohibition, imposed after her conviction for operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg, pending her summary conviction appeal.

Belleau alleged she drove to flee an alleged sexual assault involving a "date rape drug." The court applied the three-part test for a stay: whether the appeal is frivolous, whether continuation of the prohibition would cause hardship, and whether granting the stay would detrimentally affect public confidence in the justice system.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous, that Belleau would suffer hardship (risk to employment as a social worker and impact on family life), and that she did not pose a danger to the public.

The application for a stay was granted with a condition of zero blood alcohol content while driving.

The applicant, Dylan Travis, sought to exclude evidence (a loaded firearm and other items) under ss. 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unlawful detention, arrest, and unreasonable search.

Police officers, investigating a domestic assault, mistook Travis for another individual (Daymien Kennedy) who was subject to an arrest warrant.

Travis fled upon seeing the police, was apprehended, and a loaded revolver was discovered.

The court found that the police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest Travis based on his resemblance to the suspect, his presence in the suspect's drop-off vicinity, and his immediate flight.

Consequently, the detention and subsequent search incident to arrest were deemed lawful.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed, and the evidence was ruled admissible at trial.

The respondent mother, having been the successful party in previous motions concerning parenting time, sought costs.

The applicant father opposed the costs request and sought his own costs.

The court found no evidence of unreasonable behavior by either party that would displace the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs.

The respondent mother's offers to settle did not meet the formal requirements for enhanced cost consequences under Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court rejected the applicant father's argument that the respondent mother's legal aid funding should limit the recoverable costs to Legal Aid rates, reaffirming that legally aided clients are entitled to recover costs at private retainer rates.

The court fixed the respondent mother's costs for the original motions at $2,500 and awarded an additional $500 for the preparation of costs submissions, totaling $3,000.