Alcohol abuse

The Ontario Court of Justice granted summary judgment in favour of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, placing three children in extended society care due to chronic and long-standing child protection concerns including domestic violence, parental substance abuse, and mental health issues.

The court emphasized the children’s expressed wishes not to return to parental care, the lack of meaningful progress despite years of intervention, and the need for permanency and closure.

The decision carefully applied the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and the principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin regarding summary judgment, underscoring the cautious approach required in child protection cases.

This decision addresses a motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning the temporary care and custody of a child, M.S., following apprehension by the Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County.

The court applied the statutory test under section 94 of the Act, focusing on whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm and whether supervision orders could adequately protect the child.

The evidence demonstrated the mother’s long-standing alcohol abuse, verbal abuse, and uncooperative behavior, which placed the child at risk.

The court ordered the child remain in the father’s temporary care with supervised access to the mother, emphasizing the least disruptive placement consistent with the child’s safety and well-being.

The offender, Kevin Goudreau, was convicted of two counts of criminal harassment and one count of breaching his probation order, stemming from a loud, racist, and homophobic rant in his backyard that terrified his gay neighbours.

Two counts of uttering death threats were stayed.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the hateful language and significant impact on the victims (who were forced to move), and mitigating factors such as the offender's recent sobriety and completion of rehabilitation programs.

The Crown sought six months of incarceration, while the offender advocated for a conditional sentence.

The court determined that a conditional sentence was not appropriate due to the pressing need for denunciation and deterrence.

The final sentence included intermittent incarceration and a three-year probation order with specific, tailored conditions, such as restrictions on public expression of hate and alcohol consumption outside the home, aimed at protecting the community and facilitating the offender's reintegration.

The applicant brought two motions for interlocutory relief seeking further financial disclosure, prospective and retroactive child support, s.7 expenses, and suspension of the respondent's parenting time.

The court ordered the respondent to provide forthwith the requested financial disclosure and to pay prospective child support based on an imputed income of $94,123.

Retroactive child support and s.7 expenses were deferred to trial due to unresolved factual issues.

The respondent's parenting time was reinstated on a supervised basis, with existing conditions regarding alcohol consumption maintained.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a partial indemnity basis, reduced from the amount requested.

Tyrone Joseph pleaded guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing Cassandra Cole multiple times, causing grievous injuries.

The court considered mitigating factors, including his guilty plea, genuine remorse, and efforts towards rehabilitation, alongside aggravating factors such as the severity and unprovoked nature of the attack, the profound victim impact, and the offender's cognate criminal record and alcohol abuse.

The decision applied "Downes credit" for stringent bail conditions, "Summers credit" for pre-trial custody (1.5:1), and "Duncan credit" for harsh detention conditions (lockdowns, triple-bunking).

A net sentence of 33¼ months imprisonment was imposed after deducting 502 days for bail and pre-trial custody credits, along with various ancillary orders.

The Father brought an urgent motion to add his girlfriend, L.H., to the list of approved parenting supervisors, as his parenting time was supervised due to concerns about alcohol abuse.

The Mother opposed, arguing that the girlfriend's new relationship with the Father could compromise her objectivity as a supervisor, especially given the Father's denial of his alcohol issues and his lack of candour regarding the relationship.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the Mother's refusal to be reasonable and in the children's best interests.

The judge noted the Father's manipulative conduct, his failure to utilize other already-approved supervisors, and his misrepresentation of L.H.'s role.

The applicants, the maternal grandmother and her partner, sought primary care of the child, Addison, and defined parenting time for the child's parents.

The mother sought the child's return to her care, and the father sought primary care for himself.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to remain in the primary care of the applicants, citing concerns about the mother's alcohol abuse and the instability of her living situation, and the potential disruption to the child's established community ties if placed with the father.

Joint decision-making responsibility was ordered, with final authority for the maternal grandmother.

Specific parenting time schedules were set for both parents, and the father was ordered to pay child support.

The respondent mother brought a motion to vary an interim parenting time order for her two-year-old child, Isabelle, who resides with the applicant father.

The mother, now residing four hours away, sought unsupervised weekly parenting time in Sudbury or supervised by her mother/adult daughter.

The father proposed limited supervised access in Milton at a family visiting centre.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the mother's relocation, resolution of criminal charges, and the cessation of previous supervision arrangements.

Emphasizing the child's best interests, particularly physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security, and well-being, the court deemed the father's proposal ungenerous and impractical, while the mother's request for weekly travel was excessive for a young child.

The court ordered a hybrid approach: supervised parenting time at the maternal grandmother's alcohol-free home in Sudbury once a month for a weekend, and also supervised access at the Thrive Family Visiting Centre in Milton.

Remote parenting time provisions were also established.

This is a sentencing decision for Brandon Charles Rusk, who was found guilty of multiple sexual offences against a 13-year-old victim, including sexual assault, exposing genitals, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The Crown sought 12-15 months imprisonment, while the accused sought a conditional or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a one-year term of imprisonment followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA for life, s. 161 order, weapons prohibition, no-contact).

The judge found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences, the accused's lack of insight into consent, and the significant impact on the victim, despite the accused's recent efforts at rehabilitation for substance abuse.

The court declined to rule on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as the appropriate sentence exceeded these minimums.

The accused, Jules Meawasige, pleaded guilty to a serious charge, leading to a sentencing hearing.

The court accepted a joint submission for a 40-month sentence, acknowledging the accused's acceptance of responsibility and the saving of court time as significant mitigating factors.

The judgment detailed the calculation of pre-sentence custody credit, including specific consideration for lockdown days and COVID-19 impacts.

Various ancillary orders were imposed, including a 20-year SOIRA order, a lifetime weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a no-communication order.

A three-year probation period was also imposed, with conditions focused on rehabilitation, particularly addressing alcohol abuse and sexual behaviours.

The offender, Ralph Rudowski, was convicted of second-degree murder of his neighbour, Ms. Janice West.

The mandatory sentence is life imprisonment, with the court's task being to determine the period of parole ineligibility.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the victim's frail and defenceless state, the extensive and painful injuries inflicted over a considerable time, and the offender's attempt to clean the crime scene and dispose of evidence.

Mitigating factors included the offender's prior attempts to help the victim, his skewed sense of reality, diagnosed personality disorders, and a misguided belief that he was doing the victim a favour by ending her life due to her deplorable living conditions.

The jury recommended a 15-year parole ineligibility period.

The court ultimately set the parole ineligibility period at 12 years, balancing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the offender's extensive criminal record, the brutal nature of the assault, and the need for denunciation and deterrence, while also acknowledging the unusual circumstance that the victim's living conditions significantly contributed to the murder.

A mandatory DNA order and lifetime weapons prohibition were also imposed.

The Applicant Father sought an urgent motion to resume court-ordered access to his daughter, which the Respondent Mother had unilaterally suspended due to COVID-19 concerns, the child's health, and the Father's alleged alcohol abuse and association with a "drug house." The court found the Mother's unilateral suspension wrongful.

While acknowledging the Mother's concerns, particularly regarding the Father's social distancing and attendance at a questionable residence, the court ordered the immediate recommencement of access with modifications.

These modifications included shortened access time, specific exchange protocols, continued breath sample reporting by the Father, strict adherence to COVID-19 protocols, and a prohibition on attending the "Cliftonvale Residence" without sworn evidence of legitimate work.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking sole custody and orders regarding telephone contact and supervised access due to the respondent father's alcohol use.

The court, hearing the motion in writing during the COVID-19 pandemic, declined to grant sole custody but ordered the father not to consume alcohol six hours prior to and during access.

The court also ordered that the mother and children be entitled to contact each other at any time the children are in the father's care, with the father required to provide telephone access.

The court found the father's commitment to the Children's Aid Society regarding alcohol consumption was insufficient and necessitated a formal court order to ensure child safety.

The Respondent Mother brought a motion to find the Applicant Father in contempt of previous access and parenting orders, alleging breaches related to the use of a SCRAM bracelet for alcohol monitoring and failure to consult on major decisions or provide medical updates for their children.

The court found ambiguity in the interpretation of the access order concerning the SCRAM bracelet and supervision requirements.

Given the high standard of proof for contempt (beyond a reasonable doubt) and the paramount consideration of the children's best interests, the court dismissed the contempt motion.

It emphasized that simply reverting to old orders was not in the children's best interests due to the time elapsed and the need for further investigation into the Respondent Mother's Motion to Change and the Applicant Father's request for reintegration therapy.

The parties were directed to a settlement conference to explore options for resuming access and safeguards.

The defendant, Kunal Bulland, was found guilty of impaired driving causing bodily harm after a trial without a jury.

The collision resulted in catastrophic, permanent injuries to the victim, Ian Godin-Chevrier.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the catastrophic nature of the injuries, the defendant's choice to drive while impaired, a previous careless driving conviction where he promised not to drink and drive again, his driving conduct (failure to brake or take evasive action), and a prior assault conviction.

Mitigating factors included remorse, supportive family and friends, family dependency, and participation in alcohol abuse programs.

The court emphasized deterrence and denunciation as primary sentencing objectives, rejecting the defence's request for an intermittent sentence.

The defendant was sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment, a five-year driving prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim and his mother.

The accused, J.D., was charged with three counts of sexual assault against his wife, D.D. The incidents allegedly occurred between January and April 2017.

The defense argued that D.D.'s testimony was not credible or reliable, suggesting a motive to fabricate due to ongoing family law proceedings, and highlighted inconsistencies in her statements.

The Crown argued D.D.'s testimony was credible, supported by an audio recording demonstrating the accused's animus and his admissions regarding alcohol use.

The court found J.D.'s testimony regarding his drinking problematic and inconsistent.

However, due to significant inconsistencies in D.D.'s testimony, particularly regarding the number and details of alleged assaults and "French Vanilla incidents," and a lack of thorough investigation into D.D.'s cell phone, the court was left with a reasonable doubt.

The court could not decide whom to believe and therefore found J.D. not guilty on all three counts.

This is a sentencing decision for a serious domestic assault.

The offender, Kostantinos Tountzios, pleaded guilty to assaulting his common-law spouse, causing significant injuries including a fractured arm and concussion.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the prolonged and vicious nature of the assault, the breach of trust, and the prevention of calling 911.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, genuine remorse, and lack of prior criminal record.

The court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence as primary objectives, alongside specific deterrence and rehabilitation, noting the offender's alcohol abuse as an explanation for his behaviour, not a mitigating factor.

A joint submission was accepted.

Alex Sheikh sought a review of a detention order made by a Justice of the Peace.

The applicant was charged with multiple offences, including assault and various firearm offences, and had a significant criminal record with prior breaches of court orders.

The original detention was based on secondary grounds, citing a substantial likelihood of committing further offences if released.

The applicant proposed four changes to his bail plan, including a new surety, a change in his mother's work schedule, willingness to undertake alcohol treatment, and GPS monitoring.

The court found that while these changes incrementally reduced the likelihood of re-offending, they were insufficient to overcome the substantial likelihood of committing criminal offences given the applicant's history.

The application for review was dismissed, and the detention order was upheld.

The applicant mother, Andrea Bolla, brought an application for custody in Ontario after wrongfully removing her two children from Botswana, where they habitually resided with the respondent father, Alias Swart.

The central issue was whether the Ontario court should accept jurisdiction, which required the applicant to establish a risk of "serious harm" to the children if returned to Botswana under s. 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court found the applicant's claims of abuse, corruption in the Botswana legal system, and the children's anxiety to be unsubstantiated or insufficient to meet the high threshold of "serious harm." The court ordered the children's return to Botswana for custody proceedings to continue there, with undertakings from the father to mitigate short-term harm.

This motion to change concerned custody and access arrangements for two children, J. and B., following a history of parental separation, reconciliation, and ongoing conflict, primarily driven by the paternal grandmother's interference.

The applicants (father, paternal grandmother, and paternal grandfather) sought sole custody for the father, while the respondent (mother) sought sole custody for herself.

The court found that the grandmother's negative influence and undermining of the mother's role significantly harmed the children's emotional health, particularly J.'s anxiety.

The father was found to be marginally involved and had unresolved alcohol and mental health issues requiring supervised access.

The mother demonstrated improved parenting, a stable environment, and a commitment to the children's needs.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, allowing the children to remain in Orangeville.

The father's access was ordered to be supervised, with the grandparents explicitly prohibited from acting as supervisors until they undergo counselling to address their conduct and demonstrate an appreciation of the harm caused.

Child support was also adjusted based on the father's current income.