Allison P. Williams

This decision addresses a third-party records application brought by the young person accused, Q.F., under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code, seeking production of the complainant J.P.'s therapeutic records and prior police occurrence reports in a sexual assault case.

The court dismissed the application at the first stage, finding that the accused failed to establish that the records were 'likely relevant' to an issue at trial or the competence of a witness, and that their production was not 'necessary in the interests of justice'.

The court emphasized that mere assertions or speculative claims are insufficient to overcome the high expectation of privacy associated with such records.

The husband appealed the trial judge's determination regarding the wife's entitlement to compensatory spousal support, the attribution of income for child and spousal support purposes, the set-off of equalization against retroactive support, and the determination not to award limited term support.

The wife had cross-appealed on the basis of fresh evidence but withdrew the cross-appeal during submissions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings on all issues.

The applicant brought a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns, provide culturally appropriate services, and give reasons for its decisions regarding an investigation into sexual abuse allegations involving her child.

The Board found that the Society had met its statutory obligations to communicate with the applicant, explain its joint investigation process with the police, and provide written reasons for its decisions, including the denial of a file transfer to Native Child and Family Services.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision denying his application for citizenship in the Métis Nation of Ontario (MNO).

The MNO brought a motion to quash the application on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the MNO is a private, voluntary organization and its membership decisions do not fall within the public law sphere.

Consequently, the decisions are not subject to judicial review under the Judicial Review Procedure Act.