3 total
Production order for incarcerated father to attend routine family court appearance was improperly obtained.
In a child protection proceeding, the incarcerated father's lawyer obtained a production order from the criminal court to have the father transported to family court for a routine appearance.
The family court convened a conference to address the process, finding that the order was improperly obtained without notice, was procedurally defective, and caused unnecessary logistical and security issues.
The court emphasized that prisoner production to family court is not an entitlement for routine appearances and must satisfy the necessity test under Family Law Rule 23(10).
74-year-old offender sentenced to 3 years in penitentiary for historical and recent familial sexual offences.
The 74-year-old accused was convicted of incest, sexual assault, and sexual interference involving his sister, niece, and great-niece over a 46-year period.
The Crown sought a 3-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.
The court found a conditional sentence inappropriate due to the gravity of the offences, the breach of trust, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.
The accused was sentenced to a global term of 3 years in penitentiary, along with ancillary orders including a 10-year weapons prohibition, a 10-year s. 161 prohibition, a DNA order, and a lifetime SOIRA order.
Summary judgment granted for Crown wardship of a medically fragile child due to parents' inability to provide adequate care.
The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of a child with complex medical needs.
The child was apprehended after the father, who had primary care, was arrested for domestic assault and exhibited untreated mental health issues.
The child's health had significantly deteriorated in the father's care but stabilized in foster care.
The mother sought placement of the child with her, but the court noted her history of instability, daily marijuana use, and the child's medical requirements.
The court found no genuine issue for trial, determining the child was in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship with access to the mother at the society's discretion.
