Laurie Lacelle

The Applicant sought costs of $5,866.71 following a successful motion and cross-motion.

The court applied Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, considering the parties' overall success, behaviour, and offers to settle.

The Applicant was deemed the more successful party, and the Respondent's failure to accept a severable offer to settle and make his own offer was a significant factor.

Despite the Respondent being self-represented and paying for reunification counselling, the court found the requested costs reasonable and proportionate, ordering the Respondent to pay the full amount sought.

The Crown applied for an order to protect the identities of a civilian police agent and an undercover officer involved in the investigation of a criminal case against the accused, Michael Wentworth, who faced charges including manslaughter, first-degree murder, robbery, and arson.

The application was brought under sections 486.31(1) and 486.5(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused did not oppose the order, and no media intervened.

The court granted the order, finding it was in the interest of the proper administration of justice to protect the safety and security of the police agent and undercover officer from intimidation or retaliation, while balancing this need with the open court principle and freedom of expression.

The order specified terms for pseudonyms, non-disclosure of identifying information, publication bans, and restrictions on recording and access to exhibits.

The parties brought cross-motions for temporary orders regarding parenting and child support.

The mother sought retroactive and ongoing contribution for section 7 expenses totaling over $86,000, which included the $29,000 purchase of a horse for the child's anxiety.

The court dismissed the mother's motion for section 7 expenses, finding the horseback riding costs excessive and unreasonable given the parties' incomes.

The court also declined to apportion other valid expenses due to insufficient evidence regarding the self-employed mother's true income.

Parenting issues were deferred pending reunification counselling.

The applicant brought an application under s. 8 of the Charter, alleging her rights were violated because a search warrant for her residence was issued after the justice of the peace received unsworn, unrecorded clarification from the affiant over the phone.

The court found that the affiant only reiterated information already contained in the sworn Information to Obtain (ITO) and did not provide any new information.

The court concluded that the warrant could have been issued based solely on the sworn ITO, and therefore no s. 8 Charter breach occurred.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order that the post-secondary expenses for the parties' adult child be shared equally between the parents and the child.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing she could only afford to pay the table amount of child support due to her limited financial means.

The court found that the child had the means to make a significant contribution to her own expenses and that the mother had limited financial ability compared to the father.

The court ordered the mother to pay the equivalent of table child support directly to the child, with the father responsible for the remaining balance of the reasonable expenses.

During a trial for domestic assault, the Crown brought an application to admit the complainant's prior audio-recorded out-of-court statement for its truth after she recanted her evidence on the stand.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, focusing on threshold reliability.

The court found that procedural reliability was established because the statement was audio-recorded, the complainant was available for meaningful cross-examination at trial, and she understood the importance of telling the truth to the police.

The application was granted and the statement was admitted.

The applicant father brought a motion for an interim order to expand his parenting time to a shared parenting schedule and to clarify communication for decision-making.

The respondent mother opposed the shared parenting schedule and proposed an alternative schedule.

The court found that the mother's proposed schedule was in the very young child's best interests, providing consistency while expanding the father's parenting time.

The court also ordered the father's requested terms regarding communication for decision-making and changed the exchange location to a police station to minimize conflict.

The applicant sought a bail review following his detention on charges including drug trafficking, weapons offences, and assault causing bodily harm.

The reviewing judge found the Justice of the Peace failed to provide sufficient reasons on the tertiary grounds, allowing for a review de novo.

However, the court dismissed the application, finding the applicant failed to meet his onus on both the secondary and tertiary grounds due to his extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, and the gravity of the current allegations.

The father brought a motion for summary judgment seeking parenting and child support orders.

The mother consented to the parenting terms but opposed child support, claiming undue hardship due to her limited income and having three other children in her full-time care.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility, with the father having final authority if disputes cannot be resolved.

The court dismissed the mother's undue hardship claim due to insufficient evidence regarding her household standard of living and ordered her to pay table amount child support and arrears based on her most recent line 150 income.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the Crown sought to admit various ante mortem statements made by the deceased victim to friends and family, as well as text messages, under the principled and state of mind exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The statements included allegations of prior discreditable conduct by the accused.

The court admitted several statements and texts that demonstrated the victim's state of mind, fear, and the accused's animus, finding they met the threshold reliability test and were highly probative of motive and planning.

Some statements were excluded as being repetitive, lacking specificity, or more prejudicial than probative.

The accused was charged with the first-degree murder of his former domestic partner.

He admitted to intentionally killing her and sought a conviction for second-degree murder, arguing the killing was impulsive.

The Crown argued the murder was planned and deliberate, and committed during a forcible confinement.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the accused forcibly confined the victim by throwing her into the trunk of his car before strangling and shooting her.

The court also found that the accused's actions, including bringing a sawed-off shotgun, removing his license plate, and driving to a remote location, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was planned and deliberate.

The accused was found guilty of first-degree murder.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of the parties' common law relationship.

The applicant is the primary caregiver to their young child and has a significantly lower income than the respondent, whose income was impacted by the pandemic.

The court applied the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $1,821 per month, finding this mid-range amount fair based on the parties' current estimated incomes.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2012 final order to allow for equal, week-about parenting time for the parties' 14-year-old child.

The child expressed a consistent preference for a shared parenting arrangement to an assessor.

However, the court found significant ongoing conflict between the parents and instances where the applicant undermined the respondent's decision-making authority and parenting time.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court dismissed the motion to change the parenting schedule, finding the current arrangement primarily in the respondent's care remained in the child's best interests.

Child support was ordered on a set-off basis.

The applicant sought costs of $27,470.30 on a full indemnity basis following her success on a Motion to Change regarding parenting and child support.

The respondent opposed the costs award, citing inability to pay.

The court found the respondent engaged in unreasonable conduct by failing to make required disclosure, missing court appearances, and failing to narrow issues.

The court awarded the applicant $15,000 in costs, noting that inability to pay cannot shield a litigant who engages in unreasonable conduct that prolongs litigation.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a 2017 final consent order regarding parenting, child support, and section 7 expenses.

The court found a material change in circumstances as the children were now primarily resident with the applicant.

The court granted the applicant final decision-making responsibility due to ongoing communication issues, while maintaining joint consultation.

The respondent was ordered to pay ongoing table child support and retroactive child support arrears of $20,915.68, as his failure to disclose income increases constituted blameworthy conduct.

The applicant's claim for section 7 expenses was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Following a motion where the respondent was successful, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The respondent sought full indemnity costs of $8,772.10 based on an offer to settle, while the applicant argued for a reduced award of $2,500 payable at the end of the proceedings.

The court found the respondent was entitled to costs and that his offer to settle was reasonable, but reduced the quantum to $6,000 plus HST for proportionality.

The costs were ordered payable following the trial or comprehensive resolution of the matter.

The Crown brought an application under s. 524 of the Criminal Code to cancel the accused's release order and order his detention pending trial.

The accused had previously been released on strict conditions, including electronic monitoring, but assaulted his stepfather (a surety) and removed his monitoring device.

The defence conceded the release order should be cancelled but argued against detention.

The court found the accused failed to meet his onus under the secondary grounds of s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code, citing his history of breaches, violence, instability, and the inadequacy of the proposed residential treatment plan to mitigate risk to the public.

The accused's prior release order was cancelled, and he was ordered detained in custody.

The Respondent brought a motion for contempt against the Applicant for alleged breaches of parenting time, communication, joint decision-making, and financial disclosure orders.

The court found the Applicant in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt for wilfully breaching the parenting time and communication terms of previous orders, specifically regarding the child's access to the Respondent.

The court found the Applicant had not genuinely encouraged the child's relationship with the father and had abdicated parental authority.

The finding of contempt was limited to parenting time breaches, with other alleged breaches serving as notice for future compliance.

Sanctions were deferred to a subsequent appearance, with encouragement for parenting time to resume.

The Crown applied for a bail review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the accused.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace erred by applying the 'ladder principle' in a reverse-onus bail hearing.

The Superior Court agreed that this was an error of law and that the decision was clearly inappropriate.

Reconsidering the bail issues, the court found that the accused, who had an extensive criminal record and a history of breaching court orders, failed to meet his onus on the secondary grounds.

The release order was vacated and the accused was ordered detained.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary an interim child support order, arguing his income had decreased after he accepted a promotion to a managerial position that did not offer overtime pay.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, arguing the father was intentionally under-employed to avoid paying child support.

The court found that the father's new position was a legitimate career advancement that increased his base salary, and he was not intentionally under-employed.

The court granted the motion to vary child support based on the father's reduced income, resulting in a set-off amount payable by the mother.