Laurie Lacelle

The accused brought a Charter motion to exclude evidence obtained by police following a vehicle stop.

The court found multiple Charter breaches, including an unlawful search of the vehicle without grounds (s. 8), unlawful detention and arrest of the passenger (s. 9), persistent questioning (s. 8), failure to provide rights to counsel upon initial arrest (s. 10(b)), and failure to file a report to a justice (s. 8).

The court determined that the police conduct, particularly the search without grounds, was a major departure from Charter standards and had a significant impact on the accused's rights.

Applying the R. v. Grant s. 24(2) analysis, the court concluded that admitting the evidence, including a handgun and ammunition, would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore excluded it.

The accused, Katrina Gilmour, was charged with multiple offenses including fraud and identity theft against Christopher Lariviere.

The Crown alleged Gilmour defrauded Lariviere of significant funds by fabricating medical conditions (brain tumour, need for surgery/medication) and false property arrears, and used his identity to obtain propane accounts and a loan.

Gilmour denied the allegations, claiming Lariviere offered money and that she had genuine medical issues.

The court found the complainant credible and the accused's testimony unbelievable, inconsistent, and illogical.

The court found Gilmour guilty on counts of fraud over $5,000 (medical and property arrears), forgery of a Superior Court document, fraud on Stinson, fraud on Lend Direct, and making a false document for Superior Propane.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a noting in default and default judgment.

She argued her former counsel was negligent in advancing her defence and that she acted diligently upon discovering this.

The court applied the factors from Mountain View Farms v. McQueen and found that while the defendant had a plausible explanation for the initial default, her continued reliance on her former counsel after realizing his negligence was unreasonable.

The court also found the proposed defence had modest merits and that setting aside the judgment would cause greater prejudice to the plaintiff.

The motion was dismissed.

The Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that two children were in need of protection and for extended society care.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing that there was a genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary record, which largely consisted of inadmissible hearsay and conflicting accounts, did not permit a fair and just resolution of the issues without a full trial.

The decision emphasized the significant credibility issues and the Charter rights engaged in child protection proceedings, reinforcing that evidentiary standards are not relaxed for summary judgment motions in this context.

This ruling addresses the Crown's application to admit hearsay statements from a deceased declarant, Lori Parker, against the accused, Michael Wentworth, who is charged with manslaughter and other offences.

The court considered two material aspects of Parker's statements to her then-husband, Robert Parker: (1) that she gave the accused information about the victim, Henrietta Knight, having money and plotted with him to steal it; and (2) that the accused threatened her family if she disclosed this.

Applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the court found the first statement substantively reliable due to a lack of motive to fabricate and strong corroboration from the accused's own statements to an undercover officer.

Consequently, the first statement was admitted for the truth of its contents.

However, the second statement regarding threats was deemed unreliable due to a plausible motive for fabrication (to prevent Robert Parker from going to the police) and lack of corroboration, and was therefore admitted only for the fact that it was said, not for its truth.

The accused was charged with multiple historical offences spanning 1995 to 2001, including manslaughter, bank robbery, car bombing, and two counts of first-degree murder.

The Crown's case relied heavily on confessions the accused made to an undercover officer and a police agent during a 'Mr. Big' operation in 2018-2019.

The court carefully assessed the reliability of these confessions, finding them compelling, detailed, and corroborated by independent evidence.

The accused was found guilty of the robbery of Henrietta Knight (but acquitted of her manslaughter due to a gap in medical evidence regarding causation), the TD Bank robbery, the car bombing of David Allan's vehicle, and the first-degree murders of Richard Kimball and Stephen St. Denis.

The mother was previously found in contempt of court for breaching parenting orders and alienating the child from the father.

At the penalty hearing, the court found the mother had not purged her contempt and continued to act unilaterally.

The court declined to change the child's primary residence or impose a jail sentence, finding a motion to change was the appropriate vehicle for custody issues.

Instead, the court ordered the mother to pay a $2,000 fine, reimburse the father $4,725 for reunification counselling, complete a high-conflict parenting course, and pay full indemnity costs of $16,314.38.

During a trial for robbery, the defence sought to cross-examine a police officer about other suspects identified early in the investigation to raise a reasonable doubt about identity.

The Crown objected, arguing the defence needed to establish relevance and admissibility first.

The trial judge ruled the questioning impermissible, finding the proposed evidence lacked logical relevance and invited mere speculation.

Applying the framework from R. v. Grant, the court held that the defence must establish a sufficient connection between the crime charged and the third-party suspect before pursuing such cross-examination.

The Crown applied to admit hearsay statements from the deceased victim and the post-mortem report of an unavailable pathologist in a manslaughter trial.

The court admitted the victim's statements, finding they met the criteria for spontaneous utterances and the principled exception to the hearsay rule, with sufficient markers of threshold reliability.

However, the court excluded the pathologist's report, concluding that the inability to cross-examine the expert on his baldly stated opinion regarding the cause of death would cause significant prejudice to the accused, outweighing its probative value.

The Crown brought a pre-trial application to admit statements made by the accused during a nine-month undercover police investigation involving a police agent and an undercover officer.

The accused was charged with three homicides, a bank robbery, and a car bombing.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Hart and found that the statements met the threshold for reliability, their probative value outweighed their prejudicial effect, and the police conduct did not amount to an abuse of process.

The statements were ruled admissible.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the court considered allegations that the accused sexually assaulted and sexually interfered with a 14-year-old complainant on two occasions in August 2018.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected the accused's denial and alibi evidence, accepted the complainant's evidence notwithstanding inconsistencies about peripheral details and sequencing, and relied in part on corroborative DNA evidence recovered from the complainant's bedsheet.

The court held that the law requires caution, but not a lower standard, in assessing the evidence of child witnesses.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the sexual assault and sexual interference offences, while the question of any further convictions on the assault and choking counts was left for submissions.

The accused, a municipal tax collector, was tried on charges of breach of trust, fraud, false statements, mischief to data, and causing forged tax documents to be issued arising from alleged manipulation of tax account data, reversals, and inaccurate tax certificates and bills.

The court held that the Crown's case was entirely circumstantial and, applying W.(D.) and Villaroman, found that guilt was not the only reasonable inference given major record-keeping gaps, software transition problems, evidence of legitimate payment irregularities, the absence of proven motive or benefit, and credible denial evidence from the accused.

The court also found the Crown failed to prove deprivation for fraud, particularly where the alleged municipal losses were not established beyond a reasonable doubt and the alternative forensic-accounting-cost theory was too remote.

The accused was acquitted on all counts, with the Crown no longer seeking conviction on the false statements count.

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.

Following a motion regarding post-secondary expenses for the parties' daughter, the respondent sought full indemnity costs of $9,124.75.

The applicant argued that each party should bear their own costs or that any award should be minimal.

The court found the respondent was the successful party but noted neither party made an offer to settle and the respondent's bill of costs was disproportionate.

The court ordered the applicant to pay costs of $4,500 inclusive of HST.

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.

Following a trial regarding decision-making responsibility for the parties' son, the successful applicant sought costs of $17,280.98.

The respondent did not file submissions.

The court considered the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, noting the respondent's failure to attend a previous settlement conference and his insistence on a trial despite having no realistic chance of success.

However, the court also recognized that the respondent had consented to other parenting terms, narrowing the issues.

Costs were fixed at $12,000 inclusive of HST.