Domestic violence

The applicant brought a motion for a restraining order or, in the alternative, a no contact order against the respondent.

The parties had a fraught history, with the respondent facing pending criminal charges for uttering threats.

The court declined to issue a restraining order, finding it to be a serious tool not appropriate at this stage given the untested allegations and lack of recent violence.

However, the court granted a temporary no contact order under section 28 of the Children's Law Reform Act to maintain stability and address the applicant's subjective fear.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim parenting order seeking joint decision-making, shared parenting on a week-about basis, and an order that the child attend school in Belleville.

The respondent mother agreed to joint decision-making but sought a 2-2-5-5 schedule and for the child to attend school in Prince Edward County, where she had relocated.

The court granted the mother's request for a 2-2-5-5 schedule but ordered that the child attend school in Belleville, finding that the mother's unilateral relocation and change of school did not create a new status quo and that remaining in Belleville was in the child's best interests.

The offender, a 23-year-old first offender, pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon after attempting to remove his girlfriend from her home using a pellet gun and utility knife.

The incident occurred while the offender was suffering from severe mental health issues and suicidal ideation, and he was motivated by a misguided desire to get the victim into rehabilitation.

The court balanced the competing sentencing objectives of denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence against the offender's rehabilitation, mental illness, and strict bail conditions.

Finding the circumstances highly unusual, the court granted a conditional discharge with two years of probation.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for extended society care for two First Nations children with special needs.

The children were removed from their father's care following disclosures of inappropriate touching, though the court could not conclude on a balance of probabilities that the father was the perpetrator.

The court found the children in need of protection due to a failure to provide treatment, emotional harm, and risk of emotional harm stemming from the parents' residential instability, the mother's unaddressed alcohol addiction, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court ordered the children placed in extended society care, finding that neither parent nor the maternal grandmother could provide a safe and stable environment.

Specified access was granted to both parents and the children's First Nations band.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection and an order placing the child in the custody of his paternal aunt and uncle.

The mother consented to a protection finding based on emotional harm but opposed findings based on physical harm and the proposed access disposition.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved substance abuse and domestic violence issues.

The court ordered custody to the kin care providers with specified minimum access for the mother, leaving further expansion of access to the caregivers' discretion.

The parties engaged in a high-conflict 12-day trial regarding parenting issues for their six-year-old child.

The father sought unsupervised access, the termination of a restraining order, and an order that the child be immunized.

The mother opposed, alleging domestic violence and seeking to maintain supervised access and her decision not to vaccinate.

The court found the mother had exaggerated and fabricated allegations of abuse and alienated the child from the father.

The court ordered a graduated schedule of unsupervised access for the father, terminated the restraining order, and ordered the mother to commence the routine immunization schedule for the child.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking custody of the parties' two children and an order preventing their removal from Ontario.

The parties separated after the respondent mother and children moved to a women's shelter due to domestic violence concerns.

The court declined to make a custody order or alter the current residency arrangements on an emergency basis, noting the mother had surrendered the children's passports to her counsel.

The court ordered that the children primarily reside with the mother on a without prejudice basis, varied a previous non-removal order to include the Greater Toronto Area, and granted the father daily telephone or Skype access with conditions.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of sexual assault.

The respondent had masturbated and ejaculated on his sleeping wife's face, which the trial judge found to be simple assault because the respondent's motive was degradation rather than sexual gratification.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred in law by confusing the sexual purpose of the offender with the objective sexual nature of the conduct.

A conviction for sexual assault was substituted, and the respondent was sentenced to a four-month conditional sentence.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place three children in extended society care with no access to the respondent parents.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the need for protection, citing chronic exposure to domestic violence and conflict in the home.

The children were ordered into extended society care.

The court granted summary judgment denying access to one father who had no relationship with his child.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding access for the mother and the other father, directing that issue to a focused hearing.

The applicant mother brought an urgent, uncontested motion for parenting orders regarding the parties' three children following a separation involving allegations of physical violence.

The mother, who wished to return to Pakistan, surrendered her and the children's passports to her lawyer.

Based on the mother's unchallenged evidence, the court granted the requested relief, deemed the children habitually resident in Ontario, prohibited their removal from the province, and adjourned the matter to a case conference.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for a temporary order placing nine children in the mother's care under supervision, and for the father's access to be supervised at the Society's discretion.

The mother and father consented to the placement with the mother.

The father opposed supervised access for the younger children, while the children, through their counsel, requested that all access be supervised and occur with all siblings present due to allegations of physical and verbal abuse.

The court granted the temporary order, placing the children with the mother and ordering that the father's access be supervised at the Society's discretion, with the condition that at least two of the three eldest children be present during visits.

The applicant society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a newborn child with high medical needs.

The parents opposed the motion, seeking the child's return to their care.

The court found substantial risk of harm to the child due to the parents' history of domestic violence, extreme neglect of their four older children, and inability to follow society directions.

The court concluded that no terms of supervision could adequately protect the child and ordered that the child remain in the temporary care of the society.

The parties separated in 2013 and have two children.

The father, who has an acquired brain injury, sought joint custody and shared parenting, while the mother sought sole custody and termination of the father's parenting time.

The court found that the father's brain injury impaired his ability to parent and control his anger, and that the mother had failed to protect the children from alienating comments about the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother but declined to terminate the father's parenting time, instead ordering a structured resumption of supervised therapeutic parenting time conditional upon the father engaging in parenting skills and anger management therapy, and the children engaging in reunification therapy.

The moving party father brought a motion for supervised access to his children outside of a supervised access centre, which was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

He proposed that his parents or brother supervise the access.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, citing safety concerns stemming from pending criminal charges against the father for severe domestic violence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that given the serious nature of the untested allegations, supervision by close family members was inappropriate as they might feel conflicted about reporting problems.

The court held that an independent supervisor was required and allowed the father to propose alternate supervisors.

The accused, a 67-year-old with a heart condition, brought a detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code, arguing his vulnerability to COVID-19 warranted release.

He was detained on charges of attempting to purchase a firearm while prohibited, following a previous conviction for serious domestic violence offences against his ex-wife.

The court acknowledged the accused's heightened risk from COVID-19 but found the jail had implemented rigorous mitigation protocols.

Balancing the Gladue factors and pandemic risks against the substantial likelihood that the accused would cause serious harm to his ex-wife if released, the court concluded his detention remained necessary on secondary grounds.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, attempted murder, and forcible confinement against his intimate partner.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to stay convictions for uttering threats and assault, but declined to stay the forcible confinement conviction.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for domestic violence, the court sentenced the offender to a global term of 6 years imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody.

The applicant father brought an application under the Hague Convention for the return of the parties' two infant children from Ontario to Nevada.

The respondent mother opposed the return, alleging domestic violence and arguing that returning the children would expose them to a grave risk of harm or an intolerable situation under Article 13(b).

The court found that the children were habitually resident in Nevada and wrongfully removed by the mother.

The court held that the mother failed to meet the high evidentiary threshold to establish the Article 13(b) exception, noting the availability of legal and protective resources in Nevada.

The application was granted and the children were ordered returned to Nevada.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that the child be placed in extended society care with no access.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues requiring a trial.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's need for protection and placement in extended care, noting the mother's history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to engage in services.

However, the court found that material facts were in dispute regarding the quality of access visits and ordered a focused hearing to determine the issue of access.

The applicant mother brought a summary judgment motion seeking sole custody of the parties' child, supervised access for the respondent father, and a permanent restraining order.

The parties' relationship was marked by domestic violence, and post-separation, the respondent engaged in a severe campaign of cyber harassment and threats against the applicant, her family, her lawyers, and the judiciary.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, granted summary judgment awarding sole custody to the applicant with supervised access to the respondent, and issued a permanent restraining order.

The court also ordered the respondent to return the applicant's hard drives and destroy any copies of her personal information.

During her trial for drug trafficking, the accused sought to introduce expert psychiatric evidence regarding battered woman syndrome to support her defence of duress.

The Crown opposed the admission, arguing the evidence was unreliable and unnecessary.

The court applied the White Burgess framework and found the evidence relevant to whether the accused had a safe avenue of escape.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, holding that the evidence was sufficiently reliable and remained necessary to dispel myths and stereotypes about domestic violence.

The expert evidence was ruled admissible.