Laurie Lacelle

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 Crown applied to have the offender designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to an indeterminate period of incarceration following convictions for aggravated assault, break and enter, choking, and failing to comply with probation.

The offender conceded he met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation but sought a determinate sentence.

The court designated the offender a dangerous offender.

After considering Gladue factors, expert psychiatric evidence regarding the offender's antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder, and the potential for risk reduction through treatment and aging, the court concluded a lesser measure than an indeterminate sentence would adequately protect the public.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 8 years (in addition to presentence custody) followed by an 8-year Long-Term Supervision Order.

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.

The offender, an Indigenous woman, was found guilty of robbery after participating in a planned home invasion to steal fentanyl from a vulnerable 67-year-old victim.

The Crown sought 21-24 months in custody, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

Applying Gladue principles and considering the offender's significant rehabilitation, lack of future risk, and the recent Sharma decision allowing conditional sentences in these circumstances, the court imposed a 24-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

The applicant sought full costs after an uncontested trial, citing the respondent's bad faith conduct, her success on all claims, and beating her offer to settle.

The court awarded full recovery costs of $217,229.25, finding the respondent acted in bad faith through persistent non-disclosure, obstruction, and asset concealment.

A portion of these costs, related to support issues, was made enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office, while costs for a preservation motion related to family property were not.

The accused, Mr. Hifato, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, seeking release into a residential drug treatment program with his sister as surety.

He faced serious charges including robbery, assault with a weapon, and firearm possession contrary to a prohibition order, and had an extensive criminal record rooted in substance abuse.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to the treatment plan but argued the plan was insufficient to address public risk and that release would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found that the accused failed to meet his onus under both secondary and tertiary grounds, as the proposed plan lacked sufficient external controls to prevent re-offending, and the seriousness of the offences, strong Crown case, and extensive criminal history necessitated detention to maintain public confidence.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The parties separated after a 13-year marriage.

The respondent failed to provide financial disclosure, resulting in his pleadings being struck except for parenting issues.

In an uncontested trial, the court imputed the respondent's income at $294,420 based on expert evidence of his corporate earnings and personal expenses paid through the business.

The applicant was awarded substantial retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, occupation rent of $165,000, and an equalization payment of $241,514.24, which included an unequal division for property damage caused by the respondent.

The court also ordered the respondent to obtain a $1.5 million life insurance policy to secure his support obligations and issued a non-depletion order.

The accused, Kimber-Lee Long, sought a bail review after being denied bail for serious charges including robbery, aggravated assault, forcible confinement, and drug offences.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the accused's progress in custody, and a new, more suitable surety.

The court was satisfied that the proposed release plan, including house arrest with the surety, mitigated the risks on both secondary and tertiary grounds, and released the accused on a recognizance with a surety.