Justice B.E. Pugsley

A motion review and new motion concerning child access during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant sought to continue virtual video access only, citing the respondent's criminal charges and the enhanced health risks to one child who has Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency.

The respondent opposed the suspension of face-to-face access and sought modification of other restrictions.

The court found that the child's serious genetic condition placed her at enhanced risk from COVID-19 exposure and that the respondent's recent criminal charges and ongoing drug dependency issues, combined with his dismissal of the child's medical vulnerability, undermined his ability to adequately protect the child.

The court suspended face-to-face access temporarily in favour of virtual contact pending further order or written agreement of the parties.

The applicant (father) sought an order for the return of the child after the respondent (mother) breached a temporary custody order by refusing to return the child following weekend access.

The respondent, facing criminal charges related to the applicant, filed extensive material and a cross-motion to change custody to her home.

The court found that the respondent deliberately disobeyed the court order without plausible justification and that her actions demonstrated she was willing to prioritize her own needs over those of the child.

The court maintained the existing arrangement whereby the child resides with the applicant and the respondent has weekend access, and awarded costs to the applicant.

A motion review concerning custody and access of a child following a trial judgment.

The respondent father refused to comply with the trial judge's custody order awarding custody to the applicant mother and attempted to invoke a prior interim order instead.

The respondent failed to return the child on the scheduled date and sent a cease-and-desist letter asserting the interim order remained valid.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for the child's return.

The court suspended all in-person access pending further order, finding the respondent ungovernable by law and a serious risk to the child's wellbeing.

Limited phone or video access was permitted at the applicant's discretion.

The matter was adjourned for review after the COVID-19 emergency.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE checkpoint stop on June 21, 2019.

The Crown presented evidence from three police officers and a qualified technician demonstrating clear signs of impairment at the roadside and breath test results of 131 and 113 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath test results on the basis that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel due to alleged language comprehension issues.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, rejecting the Charter application and finding no language barrier to the defendant's understanding of his rights.

The defendant, a retired teacher and educational mentor, was charged with common assault for allegedly touching the complainant, an 11-year-old boy, on his buttock without consent during a mentoring session.

The complainant and his parents had consented to various sensory-based therapeutic touch techniques as part of the defendant's mentoring practice.

The Crown alleged the defendant touched the complainant's buttock over his pants without consent.

The defendant denied the allegation, testifying that he placed his hand on the complainant's back while demonstrating a "shield over the heart" technique to help the complainant cope with bullying.

The court found the complainant credible but unreliable in his memory, and found the defendant's denial sufficient to create a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol.

After being stopped, the officer discovered outstanding warrants and arrested the accused, but failed to immediately provide the right to counsel due to the accused's concerns about his child in the vehicle.

The officer subsequently smelled alcohol, initiated a drinking and driving investigation, and the accused failed a roadside test and subsequent breathalyzer tests.

The court found a technical breach of the accused's right to counsel upon the initial arrest but declined to exclude the breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also rejected defence arguments regarding the admissibility of the breath test results under recent Criminal Code amendments.

The accused was found guilty, fined $1,000, and prohibited from driving for one year.

The respondent brought a motion to change a 2015 consent order, seeking sole custody and to change the child's school from Shelburne to Orangeville.

The applicant opposed and brought a cross-motion for sole custody and supervised access with drug testing.

The central issue was the applicant's proposed move to Milton, Ontario.

The court found that both parties were motivated by acrimony rather than genuine child protection concerns.

The court permitted the move to Milton but maintained the shared residency arrangement and required the applicant to transport the child to school in Orangeville.

The court rejected allegations of drug abuse and violence as tactical responses to the mobility dispute.