K. Anderson

The Crown sought to admit 17 video-recorded police statements from 7 child complainants under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code in a sexual assault, assault, and threatening trial.

The defence objected on grounds of unreasonable delay, lack of description of acts, and suggestive questioning leading to tainting.

The court reviewed the purpose of s. 715.1, the "reasonable time" requirement, and factors affecting admissibility, including the "Archer principle" for prolonged abuse.

The court admitted some statements in part, but excluded others, particularly the 2021 statements concerning sexual misconduct, due to concerns about tainting from third-party influence (relatives, CAS) and highly leading/suggestive police questioning that undermined the truth-seeking function and proper administration of justice.

Motion for temporary child support for three children.

The applicant father was unemployed and receiving Ontario Works, claiming inability to pay child support.

The respondent mother sought to impute income to the father based on his education, work experience, and capacity to earn.

The court found that the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed an annual income of $40,000 to him, ordering monthly child support of $746 effective June 1, 2017.

The court rejected the father's claims that he had made exhaustive job search efforts and found his explanations for not applying to suitable positions unreasonable.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving a child with complex medical needs (short bowel syndrome requiring G-tube feeding and intravenous nutrition).

The child was apprehended in July 2015 after the mother, a permanent resident from Niger, faced housing instability, expired work permit, and loss of income in Alberta.

The Society sought Crown wardship for adoption.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to the mother's failure to adequately care for the child given the circumstances at the time of apprehension.

However, after hearing extensive evidence regarding the mother's demonstrated ability to care for the child in Alberta, her improved cooperation with the Society, and the child's strong bond with his mother, the court ordered the child be placed in the mother's care subject to Society supervision for six months rather than granting Crown wardship.

The decision emphasizes the importance of continuity of care, cultural and linguistic considerations, and the least disruptive course of action.