COVID-19

The applicant, Melissa Luczon, proceeded with an uncontested trial regarding the financial aspects of her application after the respondent, Robert Lee Luczon, had his Answer and Counterclaim struck due to non-disclosure and non-compliance with court orders.

The court imputed an income of $50,000 per year to the respondent for support purposes, ordered child support and arrears, and determined his share of Section 7 extraordinary expenses.

The applicant's claim for unequal distribution of net family property was dismissed, as the court found the high threshold of unconscionability was not met, particularly given the respondent's alcoholism was cited as a cause for his conduct, and the applicant's requests involved "double dipping." The court calculated post-separation adjustments and property claims, resulting in a net payment owed by the respondent to the applicant.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a reduced basis due to her counsel's failure to comply with court directives regarding concise and properly formatted electronic filings during the COVID-19 pandemic.

This is a bail review application by Ajmain Rahman, who is charged with attempt murder and firearms offences.

The applicant sought release based on an enhanced supervision plan and the material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including his moderate asthma.

The court reviewed the original bail decision and a previous bail review, noting the applicant's history of non-compliance and the parents' past inability to supervise.

While acknowledging COVID-19 as a material change, the court found it insufficient to outweigh the deficiencies in the supervision plan, the serious nature of the offences, the strong Crown's case (bolstered by DNA evidence), and the applicant's non-compliant history.

The application for release was dismissed on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The defendant, Nelson Niyongabo, convicted of sexual assault, applied for interim release pending his sentencing hearing under s. 523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The application was brought after a prior detention order and in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, which was accepted as a material change in circumstances.

The court dismissed the application, finding a substantial likelihood that the defendant would reoffend, particularly by breaching curfew and committing further serious offences against vulnerable women, given his history of alcohol-related breaches and the nature of his convictions.

The court acknowledged the importance of out-of-custody assessments for sentencing but prioritized public safety.

The applicant sought full indemnity costs after successfully compelling the respondent to close the sale of the matrimonial home.

The respondent had refused to sign closing documents, citing fear of COVID-19, which the court found to be a misrepresentation and an attempt to gain litigation advantage or punish the applicant.

The court found the respondent's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, justifying an award of full indemnity costs to the applicant.

S.A., charged with second-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found a substantial likelihood that S.A. would commit further offences if released, citing strong evidence of involvement in the murder, a prior bail breach, and other outstanding charges.

The proposed release plan, including electronic monitoring and sureties, was deemed insufficient given S.A.'s apparent disregard for consequences.

The COVID-19 pandemic's relevance to the secondary ground was considered but not found to be a significant deterrent for the applicant.

The application for release was dismissed.

The plaintiffs, a hair salon tenant and its principals, brought a motion for injunctive relief and access to commercial leased premises after the landlord locked them out due to alleged rent arrears and property damage concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The landlord had purported to exercise a right of distress for an inflated amount including by-law infraction costs.

The court found the landlord's actions constituted a forfeiture of the lease and an illegal distraint.

The court granted the plaintiffs' requested access to retrieve chattels and ordered the landlord to pay substantial indemnity costs due to its "reprehensible, scandalous or outrageous conduct" in holding the chattels hostage during a vulnerable time.

The applicant sought a bail review after being detained following an initial bail hearing on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The Crown conceded that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court considered the applicant's escalating criminal behaviour, including breaches of prior court orders and serious firearm-related charges, and a proposed release plan that included GPS monitoring.

Despite the heightened risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities, the court found a substantial likelihood of the applicant re-offending and that his release would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The bail review application was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

This endorsement addresses an urgency motion brought by the respondent father during the COVID-19 pandemic court suspension.

The father sought to set aside custody and restraining orders concerning the three oldest children (over 18) and to vary child support due to alleged reduced income and the children no longer being "children of the marriage." The court found the matter met the criteria for urgency as it involved a restraining order and potentially dire financial circumstances, both explicitly mentioned in the Chief Justice's Notice to the Profession.

The motion was allowed to proceed, limited to the issues of the restraining order for the older children, ongoing child support, and arrears.

This bail review application concerned David Firth, who was detained on multiple criminal charges.

Firth sought release, alleging errors in the initial bail decision and citing material changes in circumstances: the COVID-19 pandemic and the availability of a new, suitable surety.

The court found no errors of law in the Justice of the Peace's initial decision but accepted the new evidence as a material change, warranting a de novo bail hearing.

Considering Firth's Aboriginal heritage, the heightened risks of COVID-19 in detention, and the robust release plan proposed with a strong surety, the court determined that Firth had met his reverse onus on all three grounds for release.

Consequently, Firth was ordered released on a recognizance with a surety and strict conditions, including house arrest and counselling.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought release on bail.

The court considered the strength of the Crown's case, the applicant's background (including a new drug trafficking charge while in custody), the reliability of the proposed surety (the applicant's father, who was untruthful in testimony), the release plan, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant failed to satisfy the onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, concluding that detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

This endorsement addresses parenting issues arising from a motion and cross-motion between separated parents.

The Respondent sought temporary parenting orders for their two children, R. and B., including primary residence arrangements and specific visiting schedules.

The Applicant opposed these orders.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding that, despite the urgency, it was not possible to make specific orders in the children's best interests given the high level of parental conflict, contradictory evidence, and the pending s. 30 assessment.

The court noted the children's giftedness and anxiety, and the lack of a safe, structured environment for inter-sibling visits.

The parties were urged to pursue mediation and communicate to resolve parenting and financial issues.

The applicant sought a de novo review of his detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, having previously consented to detention.

Facing charges including assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and robbery, and being in breach of a conditional sentence, the onus was on the applicant to justify release.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, noting the applicant's lengthy criminal record and his provision of a materially false affidavit.

Despite the proposed surety and the risks associated with COVID-19 in correctional facilities, the court found the applicant failed to persuade it that he should be released, citing his disrespect for the law and substantial likelihood of breaching conditions.

The application for release was dismissed, and the detention order was maintained.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder and possession of cannabis for distribution, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing strong circumstantial evidence of the accused's involvement in a planned execution, an antisocial lifestyle, and a risk to public safety.

The court considered the accused's health condition (asthma) in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic but found that the proposed release plan with sureties was insufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of re-offending and endangering the community.

The application for bail was dismissed.

The applicant, Shayan Syed, sought bail release under s. 522(1) of the Criminal Code after being charged with first-degree murder.

The court considered the secondary ground for detention, focusing on the protection and safety of the public.

Despite a proposed house arrest plan with his mother as surety and electronic monitoring, the court found the applicant presented a high risk due to violent tendencies, unpredictability, a history of violence (assault, uttering threats, breaches of court orders), and unmanaged schizophrenia and psychosis exacerbated by drug use.

The proposed surety's credibility was severely damaged by her denial of a prior threat incident involving the applicant, to which he had pled guilty.

The court dismissed the bail application, concluding the applicant failed to satisfy the secondary ground.

The Applicant sought an urgent motion to impose strict COVID-19 physical distancing measures on the Respondent and to suspend his parenting time, citing concerns about his adherence to protocols.

The Respondent brought a cross-motion for an immediate 50/50 parenting schedule.

The court dismissed both the Applicant's motion for specific protocols and the Respondent's cross-motion for a new schedule, finding neither urgent nor justified.

The court emphasized the presumption of continuing existing parenting arrangements and ordered the parties to follow government health directives and agree on make-up parenting time for the Respondent.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking exclusive possession of the matrimonial home and restricted contact for the respondent father, citing her vulnerable health status during the COVID-19 pandemic and the father's alleged non-compliance with health protocols.

The court granted the mother interim exclusive possession of the home and ordered the father's contact with the children to be via electronic means, finding that the father had not adequately addressed the increased health risks to the family.

The court declined to address financial aspects due to insufficient information.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code after being detained on charges including possession of methamphetamine for trafficking and probation breaches.

The court considered a new surety and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as material changes in circumstances, allowing for a de novo review.

Despite the applicant's extensive criminal record and the seriousness of the charges, the court granted judicial interim release.

It found that the proposed release plan, combined with the heightened health risks of incarceration during the pandemic, sufficiently addressed the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention, particularly for a non-violent offender.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking validation of email service and an order preventing the applicant mother from moving the children outside St. Catharines.

The court, acting as Triage Judge, made a preliminary determination that the matter was urgent, citing the mother's stated intention to move the children to Kingston in April or May 2020.

The court validated service by email and set a deadline for the mother to file responding materials, referring the motion to another judge for a full hearing.

The father brought an urgent motion seeking compliance with an existing access order, make-up time, police enforcement, and orders regarding social media.

The mother denied access due to COVID-19 safety concerns, alleging the father was not complying with public health directives.

The court, applying the Chief Justice's Notice regarding urgent matters during COVID-19, found urgency only on the narrow issue of whether the father's access should be temporarily varied due to the mother's allegations of risk.

The father's other requests were deemed not urgent.

The court directed an urgent motion hearing on the access variation issue and ordered both parties to review Ribeiro v. Wright.

The applicant sought urgent relief for the return of two children, alleging unlawful withholding by the respondent amidst the COVID-19 situation.

The court found the matter urgent and granted the applicant's interim motion, ordering the immediate return of the children to the applicant's care and control, maintaining the status quo.

The respondent's claim of a 50/50 parenting agreement was not supported by the evidence.