substance abuse

The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex sought orders for extended society care for two children, KP and KLP, on the basis of ongoing risk of physical harm due to the mother’s unaddressed mental health and substance abuse issues, lack of cooperation, and inconsistent parenting.

The court found the children in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and ordered extended society care with supervised access to the mother and sibling access.

The decision details the evidence, credibility findings, and the legal framework for child protection, disposition, and access orders.

This case involves a status review application by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto seeking extended society care for three young children (B, C, and D) with no access to their parents, JM and MH.

The court reviewed extensive evidence including Statements of Agreed Facts, police and hospital records, and testimony from society workers, foster parents, and the parents themselves.

The children have special needs, including autism for B, and have been in care beyond statutory time limits.

The parents have a history of instability, mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence, and lack of cooperation with the society.

The court found the parents neither credible nor reliable and concluded that returning the children to their care would pose significant risks.

The court ordered extended society care with no parental access but allowed access among the siblings.

The decision carefully applies the legal framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, including the best interests of the child and the new access test for children in extended society care.

Jonathan Paypompee pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and bodily harm, and failing to stop after an accident.

The offences arose from a hit-and-run collision in Thunder Bay, Ontario, where Paypompee, driving without a license and under the influence of alcohol and crack cocaine, struck two pedestrians, killing one and seriously injuring the other.

The court considered extensive Gladue factors reflecting Paypompee’s Indigenous heritage, troubled upbringing, substance abuse, and remorse.

After weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, including his lengthy criminal record and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, the court imposed a total sentence of seven years imprisonment, with credit for time served reducing the effective sentence to four years.

A lifetime driving prohibition and DNA order were also imposed, with victim fine surcharges waived due to hardship.

The accused, F.(D.), was convicted of sexually assaulting his wife.

The court sentenced him to three years' imprisonment, rejecting the defence's request for a conditional sentence order.

The decision emphasizes the breach of trust inherent in intimate partner sexual assault, particularly involving an intoxicated and vulnerable victim.

The court relied on the Ontario Court of Appeal's established sentencing range of three to five years for such offences and considered the significant harm to the victim, the accused's substance abuse issues, and his moral blameworthiness.

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling, a victim fine surcharge, weapons prohibition, and sex offender registry registration.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Christopher Green to 2 years' imprisonment followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order after he pleaded guilty to multiple child pornography offences and breaches of court orders.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence plus ancillary orders including lifetime prohibitions under ss. 109, 161, DNA, and SOIRA.

The defence argued for time served with enhanced pre-trial credit and opposed the long-term supervision order.

The court found that Green's repeated offending, despite prior sentences and supervision, demonstrated a substantial risk of reoffending, driven by an underlying sexual preference for adolescent males and substance abuse issues.

The court applied the principles from R v Friesen and R v Pike to impose a denunciatory sentence reflecting the gravity of the offences and the harm to victims.

Enhanced pre-trial custody credit was granted due to harsh detention conditions.

The long-term supervision order was imposed for the maximum 10 years to ensure structured supervision and risk management in the community.

This decision addresses the sentencing of J.P., a 31-year-old man convicted of sexual interference with a vulnerable 14-year-old Indigenous, Autistic girl under the influence of alcohol, cannabis, and Xanax (which he supplied).

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal and substance abuse history, the victim's vulnerability, and relevant sentencing principles under the Criminal Code.

The judge imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, a ten-year firearm prohibition, DNA order, and multiple lifetime prohibitions related to contact and employment involving minors.

The decision also discusses the application of the "mistake of age" defence and the importance of proportionality in sentencing sexual offences against children.

Joshua Sabourin pleaded guilty to 10 offences, including robbery, aggravated assault, sexual assault, and break and enter.

The parties jointly recommended a 5-year penitentiary sentence, minus pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders.

The court considered the facts, the offender's background (including substance abuse and potential intellectual disability), and legal principles of sentencing (denunciation, deterrence, totality, proportionality, parity).

Despite mitigating factors like the guilty plea, numerous aggravating factors, including a long criminal record, random selection of vulnerable victims, and lack of insight, warranted a significant sentence.

The court acceded to the joint recommendation, imposing concurrent sentences totaling 5 years, and ordered various ancillary measures including DNA submission, a lifetime weapon prohibition, and SOIRA registration.

The applicant father sought enforcement of a previous order regarding virtual parenting time and a change to his interim in-person supervised parenting time.

The court found the respondent mother in non-compliance with the virtual parenting order and imposed a monetary penalty of $250.

The court maintained supervised in-person parenting time for the father due to ongoing concerns about his substance abuse and criminal charges, prioritizing the children's physical, emotional, and psychological safety.

A new, more appropriate virtual parenting schedule was also established by consent.

The appellant, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter and flight from police, appealed his sentence regarding the credit applied for time spent in Providence Continuing Care Hospital.

The sentencing judge had applied a 1:1 credit instead of the usual 1.5:1 enhanced credit, citing the appellant's treatment for substance abuse and mental health issues.

The Court of Appeal found the reasons for departing from enhanced credit insufficient, emphasizing the quantitative rationale of `R. v. Summers` credit.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted an additional 214 days of credit.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion.

The respondent mother, F.G., sought to retract her consent to a final custody order placing her 21-month-old son with the maternal grandmother, D.N., which had been made pursuant to an agreed statement of facts.

The court denied the mother's request to retract consent, finding that her arguments did not meet the criteria under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules for setting aside an order, and the alleged "new evidence" was not a valid ground.

The court also found that the Society met the test for summary judgment under Rule 16(6) of the Family Law Rules, as there was no genuine issue for trial regarding disposition and access.

The final order for custody with the maternal grandmother remained in effect, and the final order regarding access to the mother was granted as sought by the Society.

Cody Rodgers pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and being unlawfully in a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The victim, Ms. A.C., was violently assaulted and sexually assaulted in her own apartment, suffering severe physical and psychological injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors including the brutal nature of the assault, the home invasion aspect, and the fact that the offender was on a release order for another sexual assault at the time.

Mitigating factors included his youth, early guilty plea, and rehabilitative efforts in custody.

The court also addressed Gladue principles and mental health/substance abuse as potential mitigating factors, ultimately finding limited applicability given the severity of the crime and lack of a direct causal link.

The judge imposed a sentence of 9 years' incarceration, which, after credit for pre-sentence custody (including adjustments for time served on another sentence and lockdown conditions), resulted in a net sentence of 5 years and 318 days, along with various ancillary orders.

The accused, Krishyanth Kugarajah, was sentenced for two counts of sexual assault, forcible entry, assault, threatening death, and forcible confinement against a vulnerable international student.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's vulnerability, repeated assaults, threats of deportation, and the assaults occurring in her home.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and mental health concerns, though the latter were not found to be causally linked to the offences.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, imposing a global sentence of 7 years' incarceration, reduced to 6 years and 10 months after pre-sentence custody credit.

Ancillary orders included DNA samples, a weapons prohibition, a communication ban with the victim, and Sex Offender Registry inclusion.

This is a sentencing decision for Maryah Capri, who was convicted of prolonged and multi-faceted fraud against the Ontario Works Program, receiving over $104,000 between 2012 and 2016 by falsely claiming to be a single parent.

The court considered her difficult childhood, substance abuse, mental health issues, and criminal record.

The Crown sought 6-9 months custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court denied a conditional sentence, finding it inappropriate given the severity, duration, and complexity of the fraud, the offender's lack of full acceptance of responsibility, and concerns about compliance and community safety.

Capri was sentenced to 180 days custody followed by 36 months probation, with the Crown's request for a prohibition order under section 380.2 of the Criminal Code denied.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a finding that Adam T. was a child in need of protection and an order for extended Society care.

The respondent mother, A.T.T., and respondent father, T.M., sought alternative dispositions, including the child's return to their care.

The court found Adam to be in need of protection due to the mother's chronic substance abuse, unstable lifestyle, and lack of candor, and the father's disengagement.

The court granted the Society's request for extended Society care, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial for a different disposition, and dismissed the parents' plans for care and access, except for supervised access for the maternal grandmother.

The defendant, Gregory Walton, was sentenced after being found guilty of failing to comply with his Long Term Supervision Order (LTSO) by testing positive for cocaine.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his criminal record and prior non-compliance with release conditions, and mitigating factors such as his stated commitment to rehabilitation and positive conduct under supervision.

The court emphasized the importance of the LTSO condition in managing the offender's risk of re-offence.

A sentence of 20 months incarceration (600 days jail) was imposed, with credit for pre-trial custody and an additional 50 days for the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on incarceration.

A DNA order was granted, and the victim surcharge was waived.

The Crown applied to have the offender declared a dangerous offender following convictions for aggravated assault and other violent offences.

The court found the offender met the criteria for dangerous offender designation, including a high likelihood of harmful recidivism and intractable violent conduct, despite the offender's claims of willingness to engage in treatment.

However, the court declined to impose an indeterminate sentence, opting instead for a lengthy determinate sentence of 14 years (minus pre-trial custody) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order, finding that external controls and potential future treatment could adequately manage the risk to public safety.

The applicant mother and respondent father brought cross-motions for temporary orders concerning parenting time and procedural matters for their child.

The mother sought increased unsupervised access and disclosure, while the father sought continued supervised access and various conditions, including drug testing.

The court found the mother had made significant progress in overcoming substance abuse and granted her unsupervised parenting time, including extended periods, while denying most of the father's requests for continued supervision and future conditions.

The court emphasized the need to move towards normalization of parenting time and criticized the prolonged litigation.

This motion concerned parenting time and decision-making authority for two children.

The applicant mother sought an interim order for sole decision-making and supervised parenting time for the respondent father, citing his substance abuse.

The respondent father denied the allegations and sought a return to previous unsupervised arrangements, later proposing a transitional supervised schedule.

The court, relying on independent evidence from the Voice of the Child Report and Children's Aid Society, found the father's alcohol use to be a significant concern impacting his parenting ability.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making authority and ordered supervised daytime parenting time for the father, along with alcohol prohibition and drug/alcohol screening.

The parties were encouraged to cooperatively expand parenting time as the father demonstrates abstinence, with a right for the father to seek court review after four months if no agreement is reached.

The appellant, found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD), appealed the Ontario Review Board's (ORB) disposition requiring his detention at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), seeking an absolute or conditional discharge.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the ORB's decision as reasonable.

The court found that the appellant continued to pose a significant threat to public safety due to his mental health diagnoses, substance abuse, history of non-compliance with community privileges, and the violent nature of his index offences.

The court also rejected the argument that the COVID-19 pandemic necessitated a conditional discharge, emphasizing that public safety remains the paramount consideration and that a detention order provides essential early intervention capabilities beyond those available under the Mental Health Act.

The Applicant mother brought an urgent motion and the Respondent father a cross-motion seeking immediate interim relief regarding their two children.

The court addressed issues of primary residence, schooling, and parenting time, emphasizing the best interests of the children and the principle against unilateral self-help.

The court found that a post-separation status quo had been established with the mother, which the father unilaterally disrupted.

The court ordered the children's return to the mother's primary care in Oxford County, with the father having alternate weekend parenting time, and imposed conditions on both parents regarding substance use and adherence to medical advice.