Julie K.A. Quirt

A costs decision following dismissal of a contempt motion brought by the applicant father against the respondent mother.

The father sought full indemnity costs of $32,309.62, alleging the mother acted in bad faith by making repeated unfounded reports to child protection and police agencies.

The mother sought costs on a full indemnity basis from the date of her offer to settle.

The court found the mother acted unreasonably but not in bad faith, and declined to award costs to either party, balancing the mother's unreasonable conduct against the father's failure to serve an offer to settle or counter-offer.

A costs decision arising from a motion regarding jurisdiction and access enforcement in a family law matter involving child custody and relocation.

The respondent father sought to enforce the Ontario Court's jurisdiction over access issues pending his relocation to Nova Scotia, as established in a prior consent order.

The applicant mother challenged this jurisdiction and commenced a simultaneous application in Nova Scotia.

The court awarded costs to the respondent father on the jurisdiction issue, finding the applicant's conduct unreasonable, while declining to award costs on the access issues where success was divided and ultimately resolved by consent.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change a separation agreement regarding child and spousal support obligations.

The applicant sought to reduce support based on loss of employment and subsequent new employment at a lower income.

The applicant was substantially successful, obtaining a reduction in spousal support and rescission of arrears, but was unsuccessful in obtaining a time-limited termination of spousal support.

The court awarded costs to the applicant, finding he was the more successful party overall, while considering the respondent's limited financial circumstances and the reasonableness of both parties' conduct.

Motion to change child and spousal support provisions of a separation agreement dated June 18, 2009.

The applicant sought to reduce support obligations based on material change in financial circumstances following job loss and subsequent re-employment at significantly lower income.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought to have income imputed to the applicant.

The court found a material change in circumstances, rejected income imputation, reduced child support based on actual income of $72,000, maintained spousal support at $700 per month (reduced from $1,654) without a termination date due to respondent's ongoing childcare responsibilities for two children with autism spectrum disorder, and rescinded arrears accumulated since October 1, 2013.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The charges arose from a motor vehicle collision on Steeles Avenue and Airport Road in Brampton on September 19, 2010.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness identification by the victim of the collision, observations of the accused's condition by police officers, and breath analysis results.

The defence challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) regarding the timing of the right to counsel but excluded only statements made during the breach period.

The breath analysis evidence was admitted.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The defendant was charged with making a right turn not in safety contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a fatal collision with a pedestrian at the intersection of Torbram Road and Walker Drive in Brampton on December 1, 2010.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance videos, GPS tracking data, expert identification of the vehicle, and the defendant's own admissions to establish that the defendant was operating the transport truck that struck and killed the pedestrian.

The defendant argued that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the driver and that even if he was, he had exercised due diligence.

The court found that the Crown had proven the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant had failed to establish the defence of due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The defendant was convicted.