Kevin B. Phillips

The applicant brought a motion seeking joint custody, child support determination, and sharing of childcare expenses.

The court granted interim sole custody to the respondent, citing the parties' inability to cooperate and the applicant's non-compliance with disclosure orders.

The applicant's income was imputed at $130,000 for child support purposes due to failure to provide pay stubs.

The court capped the applicant's contribution to childcare expenses at $350 per month, finding the respondent's unilateral increase in costs unreasonable.

The applicant's claims for adjournment and mobility were dismissed, and the respondent was awarded $6,500 in costs.

This endorsement lifts a stay on a previous decision released on April 21, 2017, after the parties confirmed that no appeal was contemplated.

The materials in question are now permitted to be released to the parties and the public as outlined in the original decision.

The applicants, a consortium of media organizations, sought to lift sealing orders and prevent a publication ban on judicial authorizations, including a search warrant, related to an investigation into Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for allegedly leaking cabinet confidential information.

Vice-Admiral Norman and the Crown argued for a publication ban to protect his fair trial rights, while interveners (Chantier Davie Canada Inc. and Federal Fleet Services Inc.) sought to maintain sealing orders for commercially sensitive pricing data.

Applying the Dagenais/Mentuck test, the court found no serious risk to the proper administration of justice or fair trial rights from extensive publicity, noting that jurors are presumed capable of impartiality and that the alleged misconduct did not create an "unshakable stigma." The court also considered the impact of social media on the efficacy of publication bans.

The application to lift sealing orders and deny a publication ban was largely granted, with the exception of specific commercial pricing information from the interveners and uncontested redactions for cabinet confidentiality and third-party personal information.

This child protection application concerned the future of M.H., a child apprehended at birth due to parental drug use.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought Crown wardship for adoption.

The father, B.H., sought custody or joint custody with his sister, S.H., or for S.H. to have full custody.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the father's long-standing and unaddressed drug dependency, dishonesty, and unstable behaviour, which posed a risk of physical harm.

The father's proposed plans of care were deemed unrealistic and insufficient to mitigate the risks.

The sister's late proposal for custody was also rejected due to her lack of insight into the father's issues.

Crown wardship with no access for adoption was ordered, as the relationship between father and child was not found to be beneficial to the child, and access would impair adoption.

The court also commented on the excessive delay in the proceedings.

The appellant was convicted of cruelty to animals after dropping a pet rabbit from a 10th-floor balcony to its death in front of an eight-year-old child.

He appealed his nine-month sentence, arguing it was harsh and excessive, and that the trial judge erred in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the sentence was fit, proportionate, and properly prioritized denunciation and deterrence given the appellant's history and lack of insight.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was infringed.

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 51 months.

After deducting 15.5 months of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay was 35.5 months, exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The Crown failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances or justify the delay based on reasonable reliance on the previous state of the law.

The court found the delay unconstitutional and ordered a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with assault, forcible confinement, mischief, choking, and theft arising from a domestic dispute.

The court found the complainant's uncorroborated evidence regarding the choking allegation to be unreliable due to her history of manipulation and dishonesty under oath, resulting in an acquittal on that count.

However, relying on the credible and independent testimony of the accused's roommate, the court found the accused guilty of forcible confinement for blocking the complainant from leaving the bedroom, assault for knocking her down in the bathroom, and mischief for taking her phone to prevent her from calling for help.

The theft charge was dismissed as there was no intent to convert the phone.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, applied for leave to cross-examine the affiants who swore Informations to Obtain (ITOs) for a wiretap authorization and a general warrant.

Applying the Garofoli test, the court assessed whether cross-examination would elicit testimony tending to discredit the preconditions for the authorizations.

The court granted leave to cross-examine one detective on specific, limited subjects, including his note-taking regarding attempts to contact the applicant, his characterization of certain witness evidence, and investigative necessity.

The court deferred its decision regarding the second affiant until the completion of the first affiant's evidence.

Following a trial where success was evenly divided regarding child support arrears and overpayments, the court declined to award trial costs to either party.

However, the court awarded the respondent costs of $6,530.62 for successfully defending a prior motion brought by the applicant to set aside the spousal support terms of their separation agreement.

The applicant mother was completely successful on her motion for guideline child support and section 7 expenses.

She sought costs on a full recovery basis pursuant to Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, having obtained a result better than her offers to settle.

The court found the applicant's efforts to negotiate settlement and the time expended were reasonable and necessitated by the respondent father's rigid and unreasonable conduct.

The respondent was ordered to pay costs of $9,213.83.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking to exclude evidence of alleged flight as after-the-fact conduct in a prosecution for first-degree murder.

The Crown intended to tender evidence that the accused attempted to travel to Afghanistan shortly after the fatal stabbing, arguing that such conduct was relevant to consciousness of guilt and inconsistent with a claim of self-defence.

The defence argued the travel related to a pre-planned wedding trip and that the evidence would be more prejudicial than probative.

The court held that the relevance and admissibility of the alleged after-the-fact conduct could not be determined in the abstract prior to the evidentiary context of trial.

The application was therefore adjourned to be determined when the evidence is tendered at trial.

Addendum to a prior decision on a family law motion addressing spousal support obligations.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $1,000 per month in spousal support effective December 2, 2015.

As a consequence of the support order, the respondent’s life insurance obligations were reduced accordingly.

The decision clarifies the operative support amount following the earlier motion ruling.

The respondent brought a motion under s. 17 of the Divorce Act to vary a 2006 spousal support order following his retirement from federal government employment.

The original order required payment of $2,000 per month in non‑compensatory spousal support after a 30‑year marriage with no children and included division of the payor’s pension through equalization.

The court found that the payor’s impending retirement and resulting 55% income reduction constituted a material change in circumstances.

While the payee continued to experience economic hardship and had health limitations affecting employability, the court found insufficient efforts toward self‑sufficiency and inadequate use of equalized assets.

Balancing the payor’s reduced income, the payee’s ongoing need, and principles against double recovery from pension assets, the court reduced the support obligation.

The applicant brought a motion to compel disclosure following an earlier court order requiring the respondent to provide financial information relevant to determining income for support purposes.

The court found that the respondent had failed to comply with the portion of the order requiring confirmation from a bank regarding the existence of any additional business accounts.

The respondent was ordered to provide further documentation confirming whether any additional business accounts existed.

While the court found compliance with respect to disclosure about a car allowance, it ordered supporting documentation for expense account entries to allow proper assessment of their reasonableness.

The court also held that the applicant was entitled to adjourn the trial to properly evaluate the respondent’s financial means.

The applicant brought a procedural motion seeking removal of the respondent’s counsel on the basis of alleged conflict of interest after the lawyer attended the matrimonial home during enforcement of a prior access order and had a brief interaction with the applicant.

The court held that the respondent was entitled under the earlier order to attend the home with third parties, including legal counsel.

The interaction occurred because the applicant deliberately attended the property despite a court order directing her not to be present.

The evidence did not establish that counsel had become a material witness or that any prejudice would arise.

Given the high threshold required to remove counsel of choice, the motion was dismissed.

The plaintiffs' income property was destroyed by fire.

They sought a declaration that they were entitled to the full replacement cost under their insurance policy with the defendant to build an 8.5-storey condominium development.

The defendant argued the proposed development was not of 'like kind and quality' to the original structures.

The court held that the policy required replacement with property of like kind and quality to minimize moral hazard.

The court concluded the proposed condominium development was significantly different in size, utility, and design from the original property and did not meet the definition of replacement under the policy.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation regarding a terminated agreement of purchase and sale for commercial property.

The plaintiff had failed to close the transaction due to a lack of funds and waived tender, resulting in the forfeiture of its deposits.

The plaintiff subsequently alleged that the defendant failed to disclose unrelated litigation in Quebec, arguing this non-disclosure kept the agreement alive.

The court found the Quebec litigation irrelevant, determined the property was not unique, and concluded damages would be an adequate remedy.

The motion was dismissed.

The parties brought a motion concerning the implementation of a mediated final separation agreement.

A dispute arose over whether the respondent could deduct disputed special or extraordinary expenses under s. 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines from child support payable to the applicant.

The court held that permitting unilateral offsets against child support would undermine the predictability and regularity of support payments and could create arbitrariness and conflict contrary to the best interests of the children.

The agreement was ordered into effect with amendments removing the offset provision and requiring proof of payment for reimbursement of extraordinary expenses.

Additional financial adjustments and administrative orders were made, and each party was ordered to bear their own costs.

The accused applied for leave to cross-examine the police affiant and sub-affiants who swore the Information to Obtain supporting a search warrant in a drug trafficking investigation.

The defence argued that police unlawfully entered a secured apartment building hallway without permission and failed to adequately disclose this warrantless entry in the ITO.

The Crown contended that the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the building’s common areas and that the issue was irrelevant.

The court held that reasonable expectations of privacy in apartment building hallways must be determined contextually and that possible police trespass and non-disclosure could be relevant to assessing the validity of the authorization.

Leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants was granted.

Following a two-day family law trial determining the quantum of spousal support, the court addressed costs.

The applicant spouse had obtained a result more favourable than her pre-trial settlement offer and was found to be entirely successful at trial.

Applying Rules 24(11) and 18(14) of the Family Law Rules, the court held that the presumption in favour of costs to the successful party applied and that the respondent’s intransigence necessitated the trial.

After reviewing the bill of costs and applying an overall reasonableness standard rather than a line‑by‑line assessment, the court fixed costs payable by the respondent.