Richard Forget

The offender was convicted following a jury trial of sexual assault and voyeurism (surreptitiously making a visual recording) involving his intimate partner.

The offender recorded videos and photographs of the victim without her consent while she was unconscious, depicting him inserting objects into her body.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; the defence sought less than two years in the community.

The court imposed a four-year sentence, finding the starting point of three years for forced penetration offences was appropriate with one additional year for the voyeurism conviction imposed consecutively.

The court considered the breach of trust inherent in intimate partner violence, the devastating impact on the victim, and the degree of physical interference with bodily integrity as aggravating factors, balanced against the offender's lack of criminal record, solid work history, and steps toward addressing substance abuse issues.

The applicant father brought a motion to determine the child's school registration, proposing École élémentaire Pierre-Elliott Trudeau (PET), while the respondent mother sought registration at École élémentaire La Mosaïque (La Mosaïque).

The court also addressed preliminary evidentiary challenges and the mother's pattern of unilateral decision-making.

The court found it was in the child's best interests to attend La Mosaïque for the 2024-2025 school year, emphasizing linguistic and cultural needs, and the practical advantage of proximity to the mother's residence and work for stability.

While the mother's choice of school was upheld for the year, her unilateral conduct was criticized, and the court issued temporary orders expanding the father's parenting time and mandating joint consultation on significant issues, with the school choice for future years remaining an issue for trial.

The applicant father sought leave to bring a motion to change a final custody and access order that prohibited him from having access to his two youngest children and from coming within 100 meters of their residence, school, or daycare.

The father argued that his criminal proceedings had ended and he had completed an anger management course.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish either an arguable case of material change in circumstances or that allowing the motion would not constitute an abuse of process.

The father continued to engage in the conduct that formed the basis of the original order, including posting derogatory comments about the mother on social media, breaching multiple court orders, and displaying hostile and aggressive behavior in court.

The appellant sought an adjournment of the appeal to allow newly retained counsel to review the file and prepare a new factum focusing on the mental impairment issue, which had not been addressed by the trial judge.

The respondent opposed the adjournment but offered alternative conditions including payment of costs thrown away.

The court granted the adjournment on conditions including payment of costs within 14 days, counsel going on record within one week, and filing of a new factum within 30 days.

The Ontario College of Teachers brought a discipline proceeding against a school principal for professional misconduct.

The allegations included failing to report the sexual abuse of an intellectually-challenged student by an educational assistant, exhibiting favouritism toward that assistant, and fostering a climate of intimidation among staff.

The Discipline Committee heard testimony from multiple witnesses confirming the principal's inappropriate conduct, administrative deficiencies, and failure to protect students.

The principal's defence relied on 'deliberate ignorance' regarding the assistant's actions.

The Committee found that this deliberate ignorance constituted active participation and knowledge, concluding that the principal committed professional misconduct by violating multiple provisions of Ontario Regulation 437/97.

Two appeals were heard together from summary judgment dismissing actions arising out of agreements of purchase and sale.

The appellate court held the motions judge erred by characterizing the issue of whether a condition precedent had been fulfilled within a reasonable time as a question of law under rule 20.04(4).

That issue was one of fact and constituted a genuine issue for trial.

The motions had been narrowly framed around whether the agreements created valid equitable interests in land or offended s. 50 of the Planning Act.

Both appeals were allowed, the judgments were set aside, and the actions were ordered to proceed to trial, with costs in the cause.