Lori Ruth Dubin

The respondent father brought a motion seeking primary residence of the children, exclusive possession of the matrimonial home, and other relief prior to a case conference.

He alleged urgency based on the condition of the home and the mother's employment at a nursing home during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidence did not establish urgency or undue hardship under Rule 14(4.2) of the Family Law Rules.

The mother was awarded costs of $3,000.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood following a motor vehicle collision.

The defence raised multiple Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of the arrest, the failure to preserve video evidence, and alleged breaches of the right to counsel.

The court dismissed all Charter applications and found the accused guilty on both charges, though a conditional stay was entered on the impaired driving charge.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on observations of impairment, that the loss of video evidence did not breach the accused's right to make full answer and defence, and that the right to counsel was not breached.

The Crown sought to adduce two statements made by the defendant during a motor vehicle accident investigation: (1) that a parked car was not present when she parked, and (2) that damage to her vehicle was sustained six months prior.

The defendant challenged the voluntariness of these statements, arguing she felt obligated to answer police questions.

The court conducted a voir dire and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that both statements were made voluntarily and admitted them into evidence.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample.

Following his arrest, the police delayed his right to counsel, questioned him about a knife found during a search incident to arrest, and subjected him to a strip search based on the discovery of the knife and marijuana.

The court found that the accused's rights under ss. 8 and 10(b) of the Charter were violated.

Applying the Grant framework, the court concluded that the admission of the refusal would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The evidence was excluded and the charge was dismissed.

The applicant, facing extradition to the United States for an $8.8 million fraud, applied for judicial interim release.

He was already on bail for domestic charges involving $200,000.

The court found that the proposed sureties and financial pledges were insufficient given the magnitude of the U.S. charges, the applicant's sale of his Canadian home, his ownership of property in Nigeria, and the nature of the charges which included identity theft and association with passport forgers.

The application was denied without prejudice to re-apply with stricter conditions and more substantial financial terms.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment contrary to section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with the complainant on or about March 29, 2013 and June 26, 2013, causing her to reasonably fear for her safety.

The complainant also sought a peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the accused's conduct was improper and spiteful, the Crown failed to prove the criminal harassment charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found on a balance of probabilities that the complainant had reasonable grounds to fear personal injury and ordered the accused to enter into a recognizance for 12 months with conditions including no contact with the complainant and a requirement to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The accused was charged with driving while over 80 milligrams of alcohol.

The sole issue was whether police violated the accused's right to counsel by failing to advise him of his rights in Mandarin.

The accused, a Mandarin speaker with limited English proficiency, was arrested for impaired driving.

Police read him his rights in English and later arranged for him to speak with duty counsel via phone with a Mandarin interpreter.

The court found no Charter breach, concluding that while special circumstances existed requiring police to take steps to ensure comprehension, the police adequately addressed this by providing access to a lawyer with interpreter services.

The court rejected the accused's credibility regarding his limited English comprehension and found he failed to exercise reasonable diligence by not informing officers of any communication difficulties.