Domestic violence

Following a seven-day trial on the issue of regular access, the court determined the appropriate parenting schedule for a three-year-old child.

The mother, who had primary residency by agreement, sought to limit the father's access to two overnights every fourteen days, citing past incidents of domestic violence and concerns about his parenting.

The court found that while three incidents of violence did occur during the relationship, the father is a capable and loving parent.

Applying the maximum contact principle, the court ordered an expanded access schedule for the father, including mid-week overnights, tailored to accommodate his continental shift work schedule.

The children's aid society apprehended a child and applied for a finding that the child was in need of protection.

The society, the father, and the paternal grandmother all sought temporary care and custody of the child.

The court found that both the father and the grandmother had charge of the child immediately before the intervention.

Due to the parents' history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and mental health crises, the court concluded there was a risk of harm if the child was returned to the parents.

The court ordered that the child remain in the temporary care of the paternal grandmother pursuant to section 51(2)(c) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The offender was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder for the brutal stabbing of his estranged wife in her home.

The Crown sought a 20-year parole ineligibility period, while the defence sought 12 to 15 years.

The court considered the extreme brutality of the attack, the domestic context, and the offender's lack of remorse as aggravating factors.

Applying the Shropshire principles, the court set the parole ineligibility period at 17 years, the top end of the usual range for spousal murder.

The offender pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the domestic homicide of his wife.

The court considered the mandatory life sentence and had to determine the period of parole ineligibility under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

Accepting a joint submission from the Crown and defence, the court set the parole ineligibility period at 12 years, noting the brutal nature of the attack, the profound impact on the victim's family, and the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and early guilty plea.

The applicant father sought the return of his two youngest children to Bahrain after the respondent mother brought them to Ontario following a vacation in Pakistan.

The father had obtained a sole custody order in Bahrain without notice to the mother.

The court found that while the children were habitually resident in Bahrain, Ontario should assume jurisdiction under s. 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act due to the family's strong connections to Ontario, evidence of domestic violence, and the discriminatory nature of Bahraini family law.

The court declined to recognize the Bahraini custody order and granted temporary sole custody to the mother.

The parties separated after a short marriage.

The wife sought damages for assault and battery, and for invasion of privacy after discovering the husband had surreptitiously installed a hidden camera in their bedroom and bathroom.

The court awarded the wife $5,000 for assault and battery and $15,000 for intrusion upon seclusion.

The court also ordered the wife to pay an equalization payment of $14,916.57 to the husband, finding no grounds for an unequal division.

The husband was ordered to pay $5,600 in retroactive spousal support and ongoing support of $700 per month for two additional months before termination.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order placing the child in the custody of his paternal grandparents.

The mother had a history of unstable relationships involving domestic violence and substance abuse, and failed to prioritize the child's needs over her relationships with adult males.

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

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted custody to the paternal grandparents, with limited monthly access for the mother to provide the child with stability and routine.

The mother brought a motion to suspend the father's access to their child after the father was charged with assaulting the mother in the child's presence.

The father brought a cross-motion to reinstate his access, proposing to parent the child at a friend's home.

The court reviewed the history of high conflict litigation and the father's failure to exercise his previously ordered access.

Finding that the child required protection from the conflict, the court suspended the father's previous access rights and ordered supervised access at a professional centre.

The offender was convicted by a jury of unlawful act manslaughter for the shooting death of his wife during a struggle over a loaded handgun.

The Crown sought 7 to 8 years imprisonment, while the defence sought a sentence of time served.

The court found the offender's moral blameworthiness to be at the higher end of the spectrum due to the domestic context and the introduction of a loaded firearm into a volatile situation.

The court imposed a global sentence of 7 years imprisonment, less enhanced pre-sentence custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in a net sentence of 2 years, 5 months, and 23 days.

Following a high-conflict separation involving allegations of domestic violence, the mother sought sole custody and table child support, while the father sought joint custody and 50/50 access.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother and ordered the father's access to remain supervised due to his inability to regulate his emotions and his inappropriate conduct during visits.

The court also imputed income to the father for the purpose of calculating child support and arrears, finding that he failed to provide financial disclosure or evidence of reasonable efforts to find employment.

The offender was found guilty of criminal harassment following the end of an extra-marital affair with the victim.

He sent unwanted text messages, including a threat to go 'Rambo' on her, and left a disturbing voicemail.

The Crown sought 30-45 days in custody, while the defence requested a conditional discharge.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence but noted the offender's lack of a prior record and positive presentence report.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, declining a conditional discharge due to the threatening nature of the communications.

The self-represented appellant appealed his summary conviction for assaulting his common-law spouse.

He argued the trial judge ignored inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, denied defence witnesses the opportunity to speak, and rendered an unreasonable verdict.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court reviewed the trial record and found no merit in the grounds of appeal.

The court held that the trial judge properly assessed credibility, managed the self-represented accused fairly, and reached factual conclusions that were supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

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 Crown wardship.

The child had been apprehended due to domestic violence between the parents and the mother's failure to protect the child from the father.

The court granted summary judgment finding the child in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act, noting the parents' history of conflict and the mother's lack of insight.

However, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding Crown wardship, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding the appropriate disposition, as the mother had made efforts to rehabilitate herself and raised concerns about the parenting capacity assessment.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault with a weapon and unlawful confinement against his spouse.

The offences involved luring the complainant, binding her, whipping her with a belt, and forcing sexual intercourse.

Despite the complainant's plea for a non-custodial sentence to preserve their business and co-parenting arrangement, the court emphasized denunciation and general deterrence for serious domestic violence.

The accused was sentenced to two years in penitentiary for sexual assault with a weapon and a concurrent 12-month term for unlawful confinement.

The Crown appealed a sentencing decision in which the trial judge rejected a joint submission to include the Partner Assault Response (PAR) program as a condition of the respondent's probation for domestic violence offences.

The trial judge provided no reasons for rejecting the joint submission and did not invite submissions from counsel.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge failed to explain how the joint submission was contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The PAR program was added as a condition of probation.

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim sole custody of the parties' two children and supervised access for the respondent father.

The father had previously been granted primary residence of the older child on a without prejudice basis, but circumstances had materially changed, including the father facing new criminal charges and the release of a highly concerning Report of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found it was in the best interests of the children to reside with the mother in her sole custody, and ordered supervised access for the father pending his completion of counselling and a drug test.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon (a truck) against his domestic partner, assault causing bodily harm against a fellow inmate, and driving over 80.

The Crown and defence jointly proposed a sentence of 46.5 months (including pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years of probation.

The court accepted the joint submission but had to decide two contested issues: whether to impose a no-contact order with the domestic partner despite her wish to maintain the relationship, and whether to order restitution to insurance companies.

The court imposed the no-contact order to protect the victim and her children, prioritizing public safety over her autonomy, but declined to order restitution due to the accused's inability to pay and the uncertainty of the amounts.

The applicant brought a motion during a family law trial to exclude the respondent's expert evidence regarding domestic violence.

The applicant argued the report was served late, was not relevant to the jurisdictional issue, and was unreliable.

The court applied the Mohan criteria and found the evidence relevant to the overriding consideration of the child's best interests and the potential for serious harm.

The court held that the late service was not fatal under the Family Law Rules and that reliability concerns should be addressed through cross-examination.

The motion was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his convictions for two counts of assault against his wife and daughter, and brought an application to adduce fresh evidence consisting of bank records and travel documents.

The court dismissed the fresh evidence application, finding the evidence was not relevant to a decisive issue, could not reasonably be expected to affect the result, and could have been adduced at trial with due diligence.

On the conviction appeal, the court rejected the appellant's arguments that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence, applied uneven scrutiny to credibility, or failed to properly apply the W.(D.) principles.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a status review seeking Crown wardship of three children.

The parents had a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to maintain a safe and clean home environment.

Despite numerous interventions, support services, and strict safety plans, the parents repeatedly breached conditions, exposing the children to ongoing risk and neglect.

The court found that the parents were unable to change their behaviour and that returning the children to their care was impossible.

The court ordered that the children be made Crown wards with no access.