Julie Yvonne Marie Ellery

The accused, J.L., was tried on three counts: sexual assault with a weapon, sexual interference, and uttering a threat to cause death, all relating to the complainant, O.P., who was 11 years old at the time of the alleged offences.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, police officers, the accused, and his mother, as well as an Agreed Statement of Fact.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible on the core issues, despite some inconsistencies on peripheral matters, and rejected the accused's and his mother's evidence as unreliable.

J.L. was found guilty of sexual interference, uttering a threat to cause death, and the lesser included offence of assault with a weapon.

The father appealed a trial decision that made his child a Crown ward and denied him access.

The trial judge found that the father failed to meet the statutory test under s. 59(2.1) of the Child and Family Services Act, as he could not demonstrate that continued access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child, nor did he provide evidence that access would not impair future adoption opportunities.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's decision.

A child protection matter involving three children who had spent the majority of their lives in foster care.

The applicant society sought to determine whether the children should be returned to their parents or made Crown wards.

All parties signed minutes of settlement agreeing to return the children to their parents' care with a six-month supervision order.

The court, while expressing reservations about the parents' readiness, approved the settlement based on the paramount purpose of the Child and Family Services Act and the statutory obligation to preserve the cultural identity of Indigenous children.