George Walker

Following a five-day trial, the court determined parenting time and child support for two children.

The mother sought alternating weekends for the father, while the father sought three consecutive weekends.

The court ordered two consecutive weekends with the father during the school year and equal parenting time during the summer, finding this in the children's best interests under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

On child support, the court imputed various unsupported business expenses back into the self-employed father's income under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, fixing arrears at $34,093.82 and ongoing support at $1,426.34 per month.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the mother due to the father's late financial disclosure.

N.M., a young person, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder of his foster father.

The Crown sought an adult sentence, arguing N.M. had sufficient maturity and that a youth sentence would be insufficient for accountability.

The court considered N.M.'s disadvantaged background, emotional development issues, and the cumulative pressures he faced, including racism and family dysfunction.

The judge found that the Crown failed to rebut the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness and that a youth sentence could hold N.M. accountable.

N.M. was sentenced to a youth sentence of seven years, comprising three-and-a-half years in custody and three-and-a-half years under conditional supervision, with no credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defendant, R.D., was tried on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference involving his step-granddaughter.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant, her mother, and step-father.

The defence argued that the complainant's delayed disclosure was influenced by her mother's reprimand and personal history, and that the defendant lacked opportunity.

The court found the defendant and his wife untruthful about the opportunity to commit the offences.

However, the court expressed concerns about the reliability of the complainant's statement due to potential influence from her mother's well-intentioned inquiries and instructions.

Ultimately, the court found that the Crown did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the charges were dismissed.

During a trial for first-degree murder, the accused requested that the partial defence of provocation be left with the jury.

The accused testified that the victim made threatening comments before the accused killed him.

The trial judge refused the request, finding no air of reality to the objective element of the defence.

The court held that the victim's comments, made while bound and confined by the accused, would not cause an ordinary person to lose the power of self-control.

The appellant requested a hearing regarding the Registrar's proposal to revoke and immediately suspend its Transfer Service Operator – Class 1 licence.

At a teleconference hearing, the parties agreed to adjourn the matter to allow for document exchange and a case conference.

On consent, the Tribunal ordered that the immediate suspension of the appellant's licence be extended until the conclusion of the hearing, pursuant to section 19(3)(b) of the Funeral, Burial and Cremation Services Act, 2002.

Procedural directions and dates for the continuation of the hearing were also set.

The accused, indicted for first-degree murder, applied for an order requiring the Crown to produce criminal records and police occurrence reports for all Crown witnesses.

The Crown agreed to provide criminal records but opposed the production of occurrence reports, arguing they were not first-party disclosure and that the third-party disclosure procedure had not been followed.

The court found that occurrence reports from the investigating police service (NRPS) for nine specific Crown witnesses fell within the Crown's first-party disclosure obligation under *Stinchcombe* and *McNeil*, as credibility was a live issue and the reports related directly to the investigation.

However, the court declined to order disclosure from other police services, deeming them third parties, and dismissed the third-party disclosure application due to procedural non-compliance under *O'Connor*.

The applicant filed a human rights application alleging discrimination on the basis of disability, claiming the respondent failed to accommodate his workplace injury and subsequently terminated his benefits and employment.

The respondent requested that the application be dismissed under section 45.1 of the Human Rights Code, arguing that the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) had already dealt with the substance of the matter by closing the applicant's file.

The Tribunal denied the request, finding that the WSIB had not addressed the specific allegations of failure to accommodate and discriminatory termination.