Domestic violence

The accused, charged with domestic and sexual assault offences, brought a Stage Two application under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code to adduce five private records belonging to the complainant.

The records included greeting cards, letters, and a social media message.

The defence argued the records contained prior inconsistent statements relevant to the complainant's credibility.

The court found that the records met the admissibility threshold, as they had significant probative value that was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the proper administration of justice.

The application to adduce the records at trial was granted.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' child to Cyprus.

The respondent mother had travelled to Canada with the child for what the father claimed was a one-month vacation, but she retained the child in Canada, alleging the father consented to a permanent move and that returning the child would expose him to a grave risk of harm due to domestic violence.

The court found the child's habitual residence was Cyprus and that the father did not consent to a permanent relocation.

The court rejected the mother's allegations of domestic violence, finding her evidence lacked credibility and detail, and concluded the Article 13(b) grave risk exception was not met.

The child was ordered returned to Cyprus.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for the production of police and medical records regarding the respondent parents in a child protection proceeding.

The parents consented to the release of police records but opposed the release of their medical records, citing significant privacy interests related to their complex medical care as transgender individuals.

The court dismissed the motion for medical records, finding no sufficient nexus between the Society's concerns about emotional health and the predominantly endocrinological treatment the parents received.

The court held that the parents' privacy interests and the need to maintain their therapeutic relationships outweighed the probative value of the records at this stage.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place a two-year-old child in extended society care for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been in care since birth due to the parents' long-standing alcohol addiction, domestic violence, and limited parenting capacity.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as the parents failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to address the protection concerns.

The motion was granted, placing the child in extended society care with supervised access for the parents.

The offender was convicted of assault, sexual assault, uttering threats, and mischief against his former domestic partner.

The sexual assaults involved non-consensual anal intercourse and intercourse while the victim was tied up.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of domestic violence and the profound impact on the victim against mitigating factors, including the offender's lack of a prior criminal record, compliance with bail, and Indigenous heritage.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to a total of 3.5 years in custody, along with a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and a non-communication order.

The parties brought competing motions for interim relief regarding parenting time, child and spousal support, and the sale of the jointly-owned family home.

The court ordered that the father's parenting time with the daughter remain subject to her wishes due to trauma from witnessing domestic violence, but granted in-person and virtual parenting time with the son.

The court imputed $30,000 in partnership income to the father due to inadequate financial disclosure, fixing his income at $120,000, and ordered him to pay interim child and spousal support.

The court also directed that the family home be listed for sale by July 2022.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children were in need of protection and an order placing them in Extended Society Care.

The mother opposed the application, seeking the return of the children to her care, supported by the father.

Following a lengthy trial, the court found the children in need of protection due to ongoing exposure to domestic violence, chronic school absenteeism, and the mother's inability to meet their basic needs.

The court concluded that the mother's plan was not viable and placed the children in Extended Society Care, while granting specified access to the mother, father, and siblings.

The respondent mother unilaterally removed the parties' child from Ontario to British Columbia under the guise of a visit and commenced proceedings there.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for the child's return and parenting time, while the mother sought temporary permission to relocate.

The court found the mother's resort to self-help and denial of contact with the father concerning.

Applying the best interests of the child test under the Divorce Act, the court ordered the child returned to Ontario to restore the pre-separation status quo pending a full hearing, granting temporary decision-making to the father and primary residence to the mother provided she returns to Ontario.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment on the finding that the child was in need of protection due to the parents' long-standing alcohol abuse and history of domestic violence.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the disposition, criticizing the society for 'document dumping' by filing 460 pages of unfocused affidavit evidence, which made it impossible to determine the best interests of the child without a trial.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order that the child be placed in extended society care with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The child had been in care for over 24 months due to concerns regarding domestic violence, substance abuse, and the parents' mental health issues.

The father failed to file responding materials and his counsel was removed from the record at the start of the hearing.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the parents' lack of insight, non-compliance with court orders, and the child's need for permanency.

The motion was granted, and the child was placed in extended society care with no access to the parents.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion within a status review application seeking to place two children in the permanent custody of their respective grandparents.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children to their care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the parents' long-standing and unresolved issues with substance abuse, domestic violence, criminal activity, and lack of cooperation.

The court granted the motion, placing the children in the custody of the grandparents with specified access for the parents and sibling access.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order for extended society care with access.

The respondent parents, despite multiple adjournments and warnings, failed to file responding materials but were permitted to give oral evidence.

The court found the parents' evidence lacked credibility and failed to present a viable plan of care.

Applying the summary judgment framework in the child protection context, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The child was found in need of protection due to the parents' substance misuse, domestic violence, and mental health issues, and was placed in extended society care with access.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a 7-year-old child.

The court found the mother lacked credibility regarding her severe substance abuse issues, domestic violence instigation, and failure to comply with court orders, including driving while prohibited.

The court found the child to be in need of protection due to the risk of physical and emotional harm from the mother.

The child was ordered to remain in the care of the father for six months under CAS supervision, with the mother granted specified supervised access.

The mother brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the children's aid society's protection application regarding her infant child.

The society alleged the child was in need of protection due to the father's history of substance abuse, domestic violence, and a prior judicial finding that he likely sexually abused another child.

The court found no triable issue regarding physical or emotional harm, as the mother had adequately cared for the child.

However, applying the cautionary approach to summary judgment in child protection matters, the court concluded there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the mother could protect the child from the risk of sexual harm posed by the father.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for assault and assault with a weapon against his wife and son.

He argued the trial judge erred in applying the W.(D.) framework, improperly shifted the burden of proof, and failed to adequately address inconsistencies in the Crown's evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly applied the burden of proof, adequately explained his credibility findings, and reasonably addressed material inconsistencies in the testimony.

The offender pleaded guilty to the second-degree murder of his wife, whom he stabbed while she was in bed.

The court considered the offender's history of domestic violence against the victim, his mental health issues, and his guilty plea.

Applying the criteria under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code, the court sentenced the offender to life imprisonment with a parole ineligibility period of 15 years.

The applicant mother and respondent father, who cohabited briefly, sought custody of their child born in 2015.

The mother sought sole custody while the father sought shared or joint custody.

The court found a history of high conflict, including verbal and physical abuse by the father towards the mother, making joint custody inappropriate.

The mother was awarded sole custody, and the father was granted a specified access schedule including alternate weekends and mid-week visits.

The father was also ordered to pay ongoing child support of $331 per month and retroactive child support arrears fixed at $5,098.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' one-year-old child to Pennsylvania.

The respondent mother had unilaterally removed the child to Ontario, arguing that Pennsylvania was not the child's habitual residence, that the father had acquiesced to the move, and that returning would expose the child to a grave risk of harm due to domestic violence.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Pennsylvania, the father did not acquiesce, and the mother failed to establish that Pennsylvania courts could not protect her from the alleged harm.

The application was granted and the child was ordered returned to Pennsylvania.

The father brought a motion to change a final order to reinstate access to his eight-year-old son and terminate a permanent restraining order.

The mother opposed the motion, citing ongoing fear due to the father's history of severe domestic violence, substance abuse, and anger management issues.

The court found that the father had not established a material change in circumstances, as he lacked insight into his behaviour, minimized his past violence, and misled health professionals.

The motion was dismissed in its entirety, and the father was prohibited from bringing further motions without leave of the court.

The parties separated after an eight-year marriage with two young children.

The mother sought sole custody, primary residence, and restricted access for the father, alleging domestic violence and controlling behaviour.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time.

The court found the violence allegations unproven but noted the father's controlling behaviour and the parties' inability to communicate.

The mother was awarded sole custody and primary residence.

The father was granted a graduated access schedule, eventually including overnights, and the restraining order against him was terminated.

The father was also ordered to pay child support and step-down spousal support.