Lara Malashenko

This decision addresses two applications for certiorari brought by the Crown, RCMP, and Ottawa Police Services to quash lower court rulings that ordered the disclosure of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) rolling logs in drug-impaired driving cases.

The Superior Court considered the impact of recent amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill C-46) on the relevance and disclosability of these logs, particularly in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Stipo.

The court found that the Code amendments constituted a significant change in circumstances, but ultimately concluded that the amendments do not alter the requirement for disclosure of rolling logs where the DRE's opinion is not corroborated by toxicological results.

However, where toxicological analysis does corroborate the DRE's call, the rolling log is no longer relevant to challenge the DRE's opinion.

The court indicated it would quash the disclosure orders in the specific cases at hand because the DRE calls were corroborated by toxicology, but declined to issue a mandamus order.

The Crown and Ottawa Police Service brought certiorari applications to quash disclosure orders made by three application judges.

These orders required the disclosure of Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) rolling logs and face sheets to the respondents, who were charged with drug-impaired driving.

The Crown argued that disclosure was prohibited by s. 258.1 of the Criminal Code or, alternatively, that the records were third-party records and not relevant.

The court dismissed the certiorari applications, finding that the application judges did not exceed their jurisdiction, s. 258.1 of the Code did not bar disclosure, and the rolling logs and face sheets were relevant third-party records.

The court also declined to order a new hearing for one respondent despite an error in denying standing to the Ottawa Police Service, citing judicial efficiency and the respondents' s. 11(b) rights.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship for the purposes of adoption for two children.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing that the society's evidentiary record consisted largely of inadmissible hearsay.

The court agreed, finding that the society relied heavily on hearsay evidence from various professionals and individuals without establishing the threshold requirements of necessity and reliability.

The court rejected the society's argument that the Family Law Rules or the Supreme Court's decision in Hryniak v. Mauldin relaxed the rules of evidence for summary judgment motions in child protection cases.

Concluding that it could not fairly resolve the dispute on the flawed record, the court dismissed the motion for summary judgment and directed the matter to trial.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of three children for the purpose of adoption by their paternal aunt.

The children were apprehended due to the parents' substance abuse and domestic violence.

While the mother had recently made commendable progress in addressing her addictions and mental health issues, the court found her plan of care carried substantial risk of future breakdown.

The children were thriving in the stable care of their kin family.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered Crown wardship without an access order, leaving access to a potential openness agreement.

In a child protection proceeding, the child protection agency brought motions seeking disclosure of police occurrence reports relating to both parents and an order for a parenting assessment under s. 54 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parents consented to limited disclosure of records but opposed broader disclosure and objected to a parenting assessment before a care and custody hearing.

The court reviewed the statutory framework governing assessments and the criteria under Ontario Regulation 25/07.

Given the history of domestic violence, lack of cooperation with child protection authorities, and concerns regarding parenting insight and the children’s best interests, the court held that both the records disclosure and parenting assessment were necessary.

The motions were granted.

The applicant child protection agency sought a 12-month supervision order regarding five children, placing them in the care of the father subject to conditions.

The mother, who suffered from a psychotic condition, refused to take prescribed medication or attend psychiatric follow-ups, arguing her symptoms were due to past postpartum depression.

The court accepted expert psychiatric evidence that the mother's untreated psychosis posed a risk of physical and emotional harm to the children.

Finding the children in need of protection, the court granted the supervision order and required the mother to leave the family home if she continued to refuse treatment.

On a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection authority sought Crown wardship without access for three young children with significant behavioural and developmental needs.

The parents proposed that the children be returned to the father under a supervision order.

The court reviewed extensive evidence of long‑standing child protection involvement, unstable housing, chronic household disorder, parental conflict, substance use, and the parents’ inability to consistently meet the children’s complex needs despite significant community support.

While acknowledging the father’s commitment and efforts, the court concluded he lacked the capacity, resources, and organization required to safely parent the children long term.

The court determined that permanency through adoption best served the children’s interests and ordered Crown wardship without parental access.