Domestic violence

The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting his wife and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the complainant's testimony that the defendant ejaculated on her face without consent while standing over her and calling her derogatory names.

The trial judge found the complainant to be an unreliable witness due to serious credibility issues, including memory gaps regarding key dates, inconsistencies between her trial testimony and prior statements to police and the 911 dispatcher, evidence of significant alcohol abuse affecting her judgment and memory, and contradictions regarding her intoxication on the night in question.

The court found that while the complainant appeared sincere, sincerity alone does not establish reliability.

The defendant was acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with four counts of assault against his spouse arising from incidents occurring between December 2018 and February 2019 during the breakdown of their relationship.

The Crown's case rested entirely on the testimony of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable and fraught with significant gaps in memory, credibility issues including evidence of extortion attempts, and demonstrated animus toward the accused.

The court acquitted on counts one through three due to reasonable doubt regarding consent and self-defence.

However, the court convicted on count four based on security footage corroborating the complainant's account of a forceful push in a parking garage, finding the accused's response disproportionate to the complainant's attempt to take custody of their child.

The father brought a motion to change the parenting time terms in a final order dated March 27, 2017, seeking overnight access and holiday time with the parties' six-year-old daughter.

The mother opposed the motion and subsequently resiled from temporary minutes of settlement that had been executed on August 11, 2020, which provided for overnight parenting time.

The court found that there had been material changes in circumstances, including the father's consistent exercise of parenting time, his improved parenting skills, the child's aging, and the mother's undue restrictions on access.

The court granted the father's motion, implementing a graduated overnight parenting schedule commencing November 7, 2020, with expansion to full weekends beginning February 12, 2021, and holiday time including Christmas and Easter.

The accused was charged with multiple offences arising from two separate incidents of domestic violence against an intimate partner.

The first incident on August 1, 2019 involved assault causing bodily harm, and the second on November 11, 2019 involved assault with a weapon.

The accused also faced charges for breaching probation conditions and a recognizance.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, breach of probation, and breach of recognizance.

The court acquitted the accused of harassment and uttering threats, finding insufficient evidence on those charges.

The decision emphasizes the pattern of controlling and aggressive behaviour by the accused toward the complainant.

The accused was charged with uttering threats and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose arising from an incident in the family home on August 4, 2019.

The accused cut the electrical cord of a blender with a large kitchen knife while his wife was using it, smashed the blender to the ground, and allegedly threatened to cut or kill her.

The Crown relied on the complainant's testimony, photographic evidence, and a 9-1-1 call made immediately after the incident.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.

The court found the 9-1-1 call admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with one count of assault and two counts of breach of recognizance.

The Crown alleged the accused slapped the complainant during a domestic dispute.

The accused denied the assault occurred and alternatively argued consent.

The court admitted similar fact evidence of prior domestic violence but found it had minimal probative value.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence and found the accused guilty of assault, rejecting the consent defence.

The accused was also found guilty of the two breach charges after conceding the Crown's case.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault against his wife, alleging incidents on April 9 and 14, 2019.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual contact, while the defence claimed the contact was consensual.

The complainant testified that she had no interest in the accused, that their marriage had broken down, and that she did not consent to the sexual contact.

The accused testified that the contact was consensual and that their marriage was loving.

The court found the accused's evidence to be unreliable due to multiple inconsistencies and evasiveness regarding the state of the marriage.

The complainant's evidence also contained inconsistencies regarding post-incident contact with the accused.

The court found a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and criminal harassment arising from the dissolution of an intimate relationship.

The Crown proceeded on six counts, later withdrawing two counts of possession of cocaine.

At trial, the Crown further withdrew a charge of forcible confinement and a charge of criminal harassment dated March 18, 2019.

The court found the accused not guilty of assault with a weapon (thrown bar stool on March 14, 2019) and criminal harassment (repeated communications on March 29-30, 2019).

The court found insufficient evidence of mens rea for the assault charge and reasonable doubt regarding the accused's knowledge that his communications constituted harassment.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching the conditions of his Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) by consuming prohibited substances.

The first breach involved alcohol consumption in January 2019, and the second involved smoking a joint laced with crystal methamphetamine in October 2019.

A third alleged breach involving incidental contact with crystal methamphetamine was found not proven beyond reasonable doubt following a Gardiner hearing.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months less presentence custody, with enhanced credit for the harsh conditions of presentence detention and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A father brought a motion for temporary custody of two young children and supervised access for the mother, following the mother's admission of alcoholism and evidence of cocaine use during a binge in late April 2020.

The mother brought a cross-motion for sole custody or alternatively, no order at that stage.

The court found that while the case was in its early stages and credibility issues regarding domestic violence allegations remained unresolved, the mother's substance misuse and the concerning circumstances warranted intervention.

The court declined to make a temporary custody order but ordered that the children remain with the father on a temporary without prejudice basis, with the mother having supervised access only.

The court appointed the Children's Lawyer and directed that the ruling be sent to child welfare agencies due to concerns about the mother's parenting capacity and the involvement of a former addictions counsellor in a romantic relationship with the mother.

The applicant sought judicial interim release (bail) on multiple charges including fraud related to forged prescriptions, domestic assault, robbery, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown opposed release on secondary grounds, arguing detention was necessary for public protection.

The court granted bail with strict conditions including house arrest, electronic monitoring, and three sureties (the applicant's mother, sister, and father).

The court found that while the applicant's pattern of offending was serious and involved substance abuse, the proposed plan with robust supervision and electronic monitoring sufficiently mitigated the risk to public safety.

A child protection motion concerning the placement of a newborn infant in the temporary care and custody of the mother, subject to a supervision order.

The Society sought an order requiring the mother to reside at Rosalie Hall Maternity Home as a condition of the child remaining in her care, or alternatively, that the child be placed in the Society's care.

The mother opposed this requirement and proposed an alternative plan involving residence in the father's apartment with support from paternal family members.

The court found that the mother lacked adequate parenting skills, had an inconsistent history with her older child, and did not have a solid support plan.

The court ordered that the child remain with the mother on condition that she reside at Rosalie Hall, with the alternative being placement in the Society's care.

Father sought the return of a child to Germany under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, claiming wrongful retention by the mother in Canada.

The mother raised the Article 13(b) defence, alleging grave risk of harm to the child based on a pattern of domestic violence, coercive control, and isolation by the father.

The court found the mother credible and established a constellation of factors including physical and emotional abuse of the mother, emotional abuse of the child, control and isolation, and the insulated nature of the Syrian community in Germany.

The court concluded there was grave risk of ongoing physiological and psychological harm if the child were returned and dismissed the father's application.

A status review application concerning four children of Métis heritage who were apprehended due to neglect, domestic violence, parental cognitive limitations, and transiency.

The parents sought return of the two older children to the mother's care subject to a supervision order, with the father residing separately.

The court found the children in continuing need of protection and determined that extended society care was in their best interests.

The court ordered the two older children placed in extended care with the culturally matched Métis foster family, with minimum three face-to-face visits annually with the parents as access holders.

The applicant (mother) and respondent (father) brought competing urgent motions regarding custody and access to their two young children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent sought interim custody and primary residence, while the applicant sought to maintain the interim custody order granted in her favour on January 6, 2020.

The court found that while the respondent had been the primary caregiver prior to December 23, 2019, his physically aggressive and threatening behaviour on that date—including threatening to cut the applicant's car tires with a kitchen knife—provided compelling grounds to maintain the children in the applicant's temporary care.

The court granted interim sole custody to the applicant with liberal and unsupervised access to the respondent, subject to specific terms governing parental conduct, alcohol consumption, and communication.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that COVID-19 concerns created urgency, finding that both parents had demonstrated appropriate safety precautions.

The accused was charged with uttering death threats contrary to s. 264.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that on April 15, 2017, the accused threatened his former spouse with death and bodily harm during a heated confrontation regarding medical information for their children.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming they were fabricated by the complainant to gain advantage in family law proceedings.

The trial proceeded over multiple dates with the accused self-represented and assisted by s. 486 counsel for cross-examination.

The court found the Crown proved all three essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt: that a threat was made, that it was to cause death or bodily harm, and that it was made knowingly.

The accused was found guilty.

Sentencing was adjourned to April 24, 2020.

This is a costs decision following a three-day Hague Convention hearing in which the court ordered the mother to return two children to their habitual residence in North Carolina and stayed the mother's custody claim.

The respondent father sought full recovery of costs totalling $38,304.87, while the mother sought no costs award.

The court awarded costs of $20,000 to the father, inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, with payment suspended for one year to allow the mother to regularize her immigration status and stabilize her living arrangements with the children.

The court permitted enforcement against the mother's real property interests and set-off against any property settlement or division owing to her.

Applications by both parents for leave to bring status review applications with respect to Crown ward children.

The mother sought placement of the children under a supervision order; the father sought access.

The court dismissed both applications, finding that neither parent had demonstrated a prima facie case for review.

The mother's application was particularly problematic given her deliberate violation of a no-access order through surreptitious contact and her demonstrated indifference to the children's best interests.

The father's application was undermined by outstanding criminal charges and the risk of further incarceration.

The court also issued a restraining order prohibiting the mother from contacting the children, given her relentless pursuit of contact in defiance of court orders.

The accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the stabbing death of her intimate partner.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted to a sentence of six years imprisonment.

The court accepted the joint submission, finding it appropriate given the circumstances.

The offence occurred in a domestic context, which was significantly aggravating.

However, the accused's lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, substantial rehabilitation efforts including four years of sobriety, and strong family support were mitigating factors.

The court imposed a six-year sentence with credit for time served on a 1.5:1 basis, resulting in approximately five years and one month remaining to be served.

A child protection application brought by the Family & Children's Services of St. Thomas and Elgin concerning four children.

The Society sought a finding that the children were in need of protection under clauses 37(2)(a), (b), and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act due to physical and emotional abuse and risk of physical abuse, with a disposition of Crown wardship without access.

The respondent mother sought dismissal of the application or, alternatively, return of the children to her care subject to supervision.

The court found the children were in need of protection under clauses 37(2)(b) and (g) based on exposure to domestic violence, inadequate supervision, and alcohol consumption issues.

However, the court determined it was in the best interests of the children to be returned to the mother's care subject to a 12-month supervision order with specific terms and conditions, rather than making them Crown wards.