Kirk W. Munroe

This is a high-conflict family law trial concerning parenting time and decision-making responsibility for 16-year-old twins.

The father alleged parental alienation by the mother and sought a "protective separation" order, granting him sole parenting time and decision-making with no contact between the mother and children for 90-120 days to facilitate reconciliation therapy.

The mother sought to continue the existing 50/50 shared parenting and decision-making arrangement.

The court rejected the father's request for "protective separation," finding it extreme and not in the children's best interests, especially given recent positive progress in the children's relationship with the father under the current 50/50 arrangement.

The court found the mother did not engage in parental alienation but erred by allowing the children to dictate parenting time.

The court also found the father's expert witness, a social worker, to be biased and not neutral.

The court ordered the continuation of shared decision-making and equal parenting time, and awarded costs to the mother.

The accused, Federico Jimenez-Martinez, was charged with importing cocaine and possession for the purpose of trafficking after driving into Canada with 18 kg of cocaine hidden in a spare tire.

He claimed duress due to threats from Mexican cartels.

The court acquitted him on the importation charge, finding insufficient evidence of intent to enter Canada.

However, the court found him guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking, rejecting his duress defence.

The judge found the accused's account of being forced to transport the drugs unreasonable and concluded he was a knowing participant in a drug conspiracy, not acting under compulsion.

This decision addresses costs following summary judgment motions in two consolidated actions stemming from a fatal boating accident.

The court had previously found the individual defendants (Comrie and Monteiro Estates) liable for the accident, while dismissing claims against the government defendants (Canada, Ontario, and Leamington).

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the successful plaintiffs (Algra and Feltham) against the individual defendants.

Crucially, the court also granted a Sanderson order, directing the individual defendants (Comrie and Monteiro Estates) to jointly and severally pay the costs of the successful government defendants.

The court found it reasonable for the plaintiffs to have sued multiple defendants given the complex facts, lack of eyewitnesses, and the individual defendants' attempts to shift blame to the government entities.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the defendants regarding employment and insurance coverage actions.

The parties agreed on the settlement terms, including a $300,000 payment, but disagreed on the wording of the release.

The defendants sought a broad release that could potentially bar an ongoing oppression action, while the plaintiff sought to explicitly carve out the oppression action.

The court rejected both proposed releases, holding that the release must reflect the settlement agreement, and ordered a simple release limited to the claims made in the settled actions.

The moving parties, the estates of the deceased boat operator and owner, brought a Rule 21 motion to determine whether the $1,000,000 liability cap under s. 29(a) of the Marine Liability Act is inclusive or exclusive of costs and prejudgment interest.

The actions arose from a fatal boating accident on Lake Erie.

The court applied the modern principle of statutory interpretation and concluded that claims for costs and interest serve different purposes than claims for loss of life or personal injury.

The court ruled that the statutory limitation is exclusive of costs and interest.

The plaintiffs brought negligence actions following a fatal nighttime boating accident where a pleasure craft struck a breakwater, resulting in three deaths and two serious injuries.

The plaintiffs sued the estates of the vessel's operator and owner, as well as the federal, provincial, and municipal governments.

On summary judgment motions for liability, the court found the operator and the owner/master jointly and severally liable, apportioning fault equally at 50 percent each, due to their failure to keep a proper lookout, travelling at an unsafe speed, and the operator's impairment.

The actions against the government defendants were dismissed, as the court found that the existing navigation lights were visible and any alleged failures regarding the breakwater's illumination or background lighting did not cause or contribute to the collision.

The accused was arrested for murder and a search incident to arrest revealed controlled substances.

The murder charges were later withdrawn, but the drug charges proceeded.

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude the drug evidence, arguing his s. 8 rights were violated by an unlawful arrest and his s. 10(b) rights were violated by a delay in facilitating access to counsel.

The court found the arrest was lawful, but the police seriously breached the accused's right to counsel by inexplicably delaying his access to a lawyer for almost three hours.

Given the seriousness of the breach and misleading testimony by a police officer, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused, charged with drug offences following a search incident to an arrest for an unrelated murder, brought a motion to compel disclosure of redacted documents from the ongoing murder investigation.

The defence sought the unredacted documents to challenge the lawfulness of the murder arrest under s. 8 of the Charter.

The Crown asserted investigative privilege over the redacted portions.

The court applied the Richards test and the Barnes four-prong approach, concluding that while the information was relevant, it was unlikely to affect the outcome of the Charter hearing or prevent the accused from making full answer and defence.

The court held that the public interest in protecting the ongoing murder investigation outweighed the accused's marginal interest in disclosure, and dismissed the motion.

Two school boards applied for a declaration that the force majeure clauses in their commercial leases with the respondent landlord applied to abate rent during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown from March 17, 2020, to August 11, 2020.

The landlord argued the clauses excused it from providing the premises but did not excuse the tenants from paying rent.

The court applied principles of contract interpretation and found that the pandemic-induced government lockdown was a triggering event that prevented the landlord from providing the leased space.

Under the specific wording of the leases, this excused the landlord's performance and abated the tenants' rent obligations for the lockdown period.

The application was granted.

A developer, 375 Lakeshore Developments Inc., sought a permanent injunction to enforce releases signed by homeowners (Tong Lin, Jing Ning, and Michael Watkinson) to prevent them from pursuing warranty claims with Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding cold temperatures on the ground floor of their new townhouses.

The homeowners had accepted a $1,200 cash settlement based on the developer's representation that the issue was an inadequate heating system.

Tarion later identified the problem as a major structural defect due to insufficient insulation, with estimated repair costs of $80,000-$100,000 per unit.

The court dismissed the application, finding the releases unenforceable under s. 13(6) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, which prohibits contracting out of statutory warranties, and also rescinded the releases on the basis of innocent misrepresentation by the developer regarding the true cause and severity of the defect.

The father brought an interim mobility motion seeking custody and permission to relocate with the two children from Windsor, Ontario to Virginia, USA, due to an employment transfer.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing the children should remain in Windsor due to the COVID-19 pandemic and her recent progress in addressing mental health and parenting issues.

The court applied the tests from Gordon v. Goertz and Plumley v. Plumley, finding that the proposed relocation during a pandemic raised significant unanswered safety and logistical concerns.

The court concluded that the father failed to demonstrate a strong probability of success at trial or compelling circumstances to justify disrupting the children's status quo on an interim basis.

The motion was dismissed, and the existing shared parenting arrangement was maintained.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding no breach of his right to counsel of choice under s. 10(b) of the Charter, and in finding the breath test readings proved his blood alcohol exceeded the legal limit.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the Charter ground, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings.

However, the court allowed the appeal on the second ground, holding that the trial judge erred in law by relying on inadmissible roadside screening device results to prove the offence, and that the breath technician's evidence of readings with a preceding decimal point (e.g., .170) did not prove the blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80mg in 100ml.

The appeal was allowed and an acquittal entered.

The applicant sought equalization of net family properties, which the respondent contested, asserting they were not married.

The court conducted a trial of an issue to determine the marital status of the parties.

A religious ceremony took place in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1998, after which the parties lived as husband and wife in Ontario for over 16 years, raising three children, despite not obtaining a marriage licence.

The court applied Ontario's Marriage Act, s. 31, finding that the marriage was solemnized in good faith, intended to be in compliance with the law, and followed by cohabitation as a married couple.

Consequently, the marriage was deemed valid under Ontario law, establishing the applicant as a "spouse" for equalization purposes under the Family Law Act.

The accused applied for a bail review of a detention order on charges including possession for the purpose of trafficking and firearms offences.

The accused argued the justice of the peace erred by overemphasizing the strength of the Crown's case and that there were material changes in circumstances, including a new release plan, withdrawn charges, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the application, finding the initial decision was not clearly inappropriate and the new circumstances, including the pandemic, would not have affected the balancing exercise given the accused's young age, health, and the unsuitability of a proposed surety.

The accused, charged with serious firearm and drug offences, sought release from custody at a mandatory 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and a new release plan constituted a material change in circumstances justifying release.

The court found that the proposed sureties were unsuitable and the release plan was inadequate.

The court concluded that continued detention was justified on both the secondary ground (public safety) and the tertiary ground (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice), despite the risks posed by the pandemic.

Dia Eddin Hanan was sentenced for manslaughter, possession of a loaded restricted firearm, and discharge of a firearm with intent to wound, following a jury trial where he was acquitted of second-degree murder and attempted murder.

The court made specific factual findings for sentencing, including that Hanan brought the gun, initiated the shooting, and shot one victim in the back as he fled, causing permanent paralysis.

The global sentence imposed was 15 years imprisonment, reduced to 12 years and 7 months after accounting for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence due to the gravity of the offences, which resulted in one death and one lifetime paralysis.

The applicant husband, who suffers from a terminal illness, brought a motion seeking an order that his portion of his wife's monthly pension benefit be paid to his estate if he predeceases her.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the Pension Benefits Act strictly governs the division of pensions and prohibits the assignment or bequest of pension benefits to an estate.

The statutory scheme guarantees that upon the death of the spouse, the remaining pension reverts back to the retired member.

The accused, charged with second degree murder and attempted murder, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to trial delay.

The total delay from the charge to the anticipated end of trial was 47.5 months.

After deducting defence delay and delay caused by discrete exceptional circumstances, the remaining delay was 35 months and 7 days, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

However, because the case commenced before the release of the Jordan decision, the court applied the transitional exceptional circumstances framework.

The court found that the Crown's reliance on the previous law justified the delay, noting the Crown's efforts to push the case forward and the defence's lack of effort to expedite the proceedings prior to the trial adjournment.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The police defendants in a civil action arising from a criminal sexual assault acquittal moved to seal materials filed in support of their summary judgment motion.

The media sought intervenor status to oppose the sealing order.

The court granted the media intervenor status and dismissed the motion to seal, finding the police defendants failed to meet the Dagenais/Mentuck test to overcome the open court principle.

The court confirmed the criminal publication ban protecting the complainant's identity remained in force and ordered the use of initials in pleadings.

The accused is charged with first-degree murder and aggravated sexual assault.

He intends to plead guilty to manslaughter, arguing he lacked the requisite mens rea for murder due to severe alcohol intoxication.

In these pre-trial motions, the court ruled on the admissibility of evidence.

The court admitted the accused's post-arrest exculpatory statements by agreement.

The court allowed some evidence of the accused's uncharged disreputable conduct (an assault and disarming a neighbour) to show his mental state, but excluded highly prejudicial details like theft and name-calling.

Finally, the court ruled that statements made by the accused while pinned down by civilians making a citizen's arrest were admissible, finding the civilians were not 'persons in authority' and the statements were voluntary.