COVID-19

Clifford Campsall pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his girlfriend, Shelby Goldhar, whom he strangled and partially dismembered.

The court considered aggravating factors including the domestic nature of the homicide, the victim's vulnerabilities, the offender's prior assault conviction against the victim, and the indignity to the body.

Mitigating factors included the guilty plea, youthfulness, intellectual disability, and family support.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 years imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody, including additional credit for difficult conditions of incarceration (lockdowns, triple bunking, and COVID-19 pandemic stress).

Josiph Cardle, charged with first-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The court considered the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds for detention under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

While the gravity of the offence and potential sentence were significant, the court found no substantial likelihood of flight or risk to public safety.

Crucially, the court determined that the apparent strength of the Crown's case for first-degree murder was not strong, citing issues with causation and the accused's understanding of the oxygen machine's role.

The court also emphasized that poverty and homelessness should not be a basis for detention.

Cardle was released on a recognizance with conditions, without a surety or fixed residential address.

The Crown brought an application under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code seeking an order to allow three police witnesses to testify remotely via videoconference rather than in person at the courthouse.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, over 80, and possession of marijuana, and had brought a Charter application alleging multiple breaches of rights.

The defence opposed the remote testimony application, arguing that the officers' evidence was contentious and credibility was in issue.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that COVID-19 constituted exceptional circumstances justifying remote testimony, provided that the quality of audio and video transmission would not jeopardize the fairness of the hearing.

The court imposed ten conditions on the remote testimony, including that only one witness be present in the boardroom at a time, that witnesses use headphones, and that witnesses not communicate with each other until all testimony was complete.

The defendant sought an adjournment of his preliminary hearing and requested scheduling of a further date to hear from witness M.P. solely for discovery purposes.

The court denied the adjournment application.

The defendant was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, and possession of a prohibited weapon.

By the fourth day of the preliminary hearing, committal was evident on the record, with the defence conceding committal on three of the four charges.

The court found that the proposed witness had no bearing on committal and that discovery is not a constitutional right at a preliminary hearing.

The court emphasized the importance of judicial efficiency, particularly given COVID-19 constraints and the need to ensure the defendant's right to a timely trial.

Jerome Green sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for firearm and fentanyl trafficking charges.

The application considered the length of pretrial detention, the availability of electronic monitoring, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as material changes in circumstances.

The court found that the extended pretrial custody, coupled with the heightened risk of COVID-19 in correctional facilities, significantly altered the bail analysis.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations and previous breaches of court orders, the court concluded that a reasonable member of the public would not have concerns about the administration of justice if Green were released under a robust supervision plan including GPS monitoring.

Bail was granted with specific conditions.

A custody and access dispute between two parents of a six-year-old child.

The father sought sole custody with the child relocating to Orangeville, while the mother sought to maintain the status quo with the child remaining in her care in Toronto.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, finding that the child had been living in a stable home environment for four years, was thriving in her school and community, and that disrupting this arrangement would be traumatic.

The father was granted specified access on a two-week rotating basis.

A significant issue involved the mother's hesitancy regarding vaccinations; the court granted the father sole decision-making authority over vaccination decisions, including COVID-19 vaccination if it becomes available.

The applicant brought a motion alleging the respondent breached a preservation order.

The respondent filed a cross-motion seeking clarification that the preservation order permitted him to sell real property, provided proceeds were held in trust.

The court ordered the respondent to hold net sale proceeds from two properties in trust and to provide a list of assets for his corporations.

The applicant's request to suspend the listings of two other properties was denied due to insufficient evidence, with the court suggesting the respondent recast his cross-motion for leave to sell if parties could not agree.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an outbreak at the detention centre, and a new release plan including electronic monitoring and additional sureties.

The original bail hearing had already considered the pandemic.

The court found no error in the initial detention order and determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate a material change in circumstances under the modified Palmer criteria, as the updated information regarding COVID-19 and the enhanced release plan did not sufficiently alter the primary and secondary ground concerns, particularly given the applicant's history of non-compliance and the seriousness of the fraud charges.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and continued detention was ordered.

The applicant, D.M., sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, citing a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the proposed use of a GPS monitoring bracelet.

D.M. was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and sexual interference and had a history of failing to comply with release conditions.

The court acknowledged COVID-19 as a material change but found the proposed surety, Ms. A.T., lacked sufficient judgment and that the applicant had a history of not adhering to surety directives.

The application for release was denied on both secondary and tertiary grounds, concluding that detention was necessary to prevent further offenses and maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the elevated health risks posed by COVID-19 in custody.

The applicant, S.B., sought a s. 525 bail review for serious charges including attempt murder and firearm offences, having been in custody for over 90 days without a bail hearing.

The defence proposed a release plan involving residential and back-up sureties, and electronic monitoring, citing COVID-19 risks and potential trial delays.

The Crown opposed, citing S.B.'s extensive criminal record, including 14 breach-type offences and a manslaughter conviction, and the overwhelming evidence against him.

The court found the proposed supervision plan insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of S.B. reoffending and determined that his continued detention was necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the acknowledged risks of COVID-19 in correctional facilities and the possibility of trial delays.

The parties, self-represented, consented to a temporary variation of their final parenting order during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The order addresses transfer protocols, communication via Our Family Wizard, daily video calls for the children, and a revised alternating 4-day parenting schedule, with initial 5-day periods for the father to compensate for missed overnights.

The order is effective until the children resume daycare, after which the original final order of Justice Bielby will govern.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion for immediate unsupervised alternate weekend access and a transfer of primary placement of the child, alleging denial of access and serious misconduct by the applicant father, including sexual assault.

The applicant father opposed the urgency determination.

The court, operating under COVID-19 protocols, found the matter potentially urgent due to the suspension of access, new serious allegations, and concerns about the father potentially exploiting the status quo.

The court ordered a schedule for responding materials and an updated CAS letter, setting the matter for a hearing on or after May 13, 2020, and strongly encouraged negotiation.

Z.A., in custody for 11 months awaiting trial on criminal harassment and probation breach charges, sought a review of his detention under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed release on secondary grounds, citing Z.A.'s history of harassing conduct and related convictions.

The court considered the COVID-19 pandemic and the passage of time but found a substantial likelihood of Z.A. committing further offences, given his persistent pattern of harassment despite warnings and previous convictions.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant sought a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, challenging a prior detention order on the secondary ground.

The applicant proposed a revised release plan, including a full-time surety due to COVID-19 related layoff and a different electronic monitoring system, and argued that the pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances.

The court found no error in the original decision and determined that the proposed plan, even with COVID-19 considerations, did not amount to a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant release, particularly given the applicant's extensive criminal record and history of breaching court orders.

The application was dismissed.

The Society brought a motion to vary a temporary child protection order to permit unsupervised access between the mother and two children (ages 12 and 8).

The children had been placed in the father's care following allegations that the mother and her sisters subjected them to physical discipline during fundamentalist religious practices.

The mother faced criminal charges which were resolved through a peace bond.

The court found sufficient change in circumstances to warrant expanded access, including the resolution of criminal charges, the mother's participation in counselling and parenting courses, removal of the aunt primarily responsible from the home, and the children's expressed desire to see their mother more.

The court ordered a phased approach to access beginning with day visits, progressing to overnight weekend visits, with various protective terms and conditions including restrictions on prayer, contact with the removed aunt, and compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

The father brought a motion to modify a supervised access order, seeking supervision by family members after the designated supervised access centre closed due to the COVID-19 crisis.

The mother opposed, citing safety concerns related to the father's pending criminal charges for assault.

The court, acknowledging the urgency, declined to order family-supervised access without further information regarding the criminal charges.

Instead, the court ordered interim remote access via videoconferencing, facilitated by the mother's aunt, and adjourned the motion for counsel to gather more information about the criminal proceedings and specific safety concerns.

No costs were awarded.

During the COVID-19 suspension of court operations, the applicant brought an ex parte urgent motion seeking exclusive possession and authority to sell the family home, contribution to carrying costs, and proceeds held in trust.

The court found the matter urgent due to the applicant's financial hardship, job loss, and the primary respondent's repeated breaches of bail conditions and vandalism of the home.

The court granted temporary exclusive possession and a temporary restraining order against the primary respondent, Shawn David Grant, but mandated service of materials on all respondents for a full hearing by teleconference.

The applicant brought an emergency motion seeking immediate resumption of parenting time with his son pursuant to a final consent order dated January 6, 2020.

The respondent had withheld the child following March Break 2020, citing COVID-19 health concerns.

The court found no specific evidence justifying breach of the existing parenting order and ordered the child's immediate return to the applicant's primary residence, with conditions requiring both parents to adhere to Ontario government health protocols during the pandemic.

The respondent father brought a motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for access to his newborn son.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for child support, a compliance order regarding criminal recognizance, and a restraining order preventing contact.

The court considered whether the motions met the test for urgency and determined that while there were serious issues, they did not meet the threshold for urgent motion relief at that time.

The court found that the issues could be appropriately addressed through an urgent case conference scheduled for April 27, 2020, which could proceed remotely.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for police enforcement of existing access exchange terms or a temporary suspension of access if the respondent father failed to return the children.

The court, acting as Triage Judge during the COVID-19 suspension of regular operations, determined the matter was urgent.

It issued a temporary, without prejudice order directing that access exchanges continue at the police station parking lot, with parties remaining in their vehicles, in accordance with the operative court order, while acknowledging the father's concerns about COVID-19 exposure and the general undesirability of police station exchanges.

The court also set a timeline for the motion to be heard on its merits if the respondent wished to file materials.