Marianne Guirguis

This decision addresses the constitutionality of routine strip searches of young persons in pre-trial custody, focusing on four Black adolescent female applicants charged in the high-profile homicide of Kenneth Lee.

The court found that routine strip searches, conducted without individualized grounds or prior authorization and involving complete nudity, violated sections 7 and 8 of the Charter.

The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead holding that the appropriate remedy was a reduction in sentence for any applicant found guilty, to reflect the Charter breach.

The ruling provides detailed analysis of the legal and regulatory framework, the psychological impact of strip searches, and the evolving standards for custodial searches in youth justice settings.

The applicant, Uzma Shahid, sought preservation and transfer of assets from her estranged husband, Shahid Ayyub, and his business associate, Nadeem Ahmed, alleging asset depletion and fraud.

Mr. Ayyub had defaulted in the main application.

The court found that Mr. Ahmed had received substantial funds from Mr. Ayyub, which Ms. Shahid alleged were proceeds of fraud due to forged signatures on investment agreements.

The court drew an adverse inference from Mr. Ahmed's incomplete disclosure and ordered the continuation of asset freezing and the transfer of $128,000 from Mr. Ahmed to Ms. Shahid's solicitor as security for child support, spousal support, and equalization payments.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

Following a successful motion to change a temporary custody order, the applicant sought her costs on a full recovery basis, arguing the respondents acted in bad faith.

The court found the respondents' conduct was unreasonable but did not rise to the level of bad faith, awarding costs on a partial indemnity scale.

The court also held that the applicant's lawyer's hourly rate was not limited to the Legal Aid rate, and adjusted the maximum partial indemnity rate for inflation.

The respondents were ordered to pay costs of $23,196.58.

The applicant mother brought a motion to vary a temporary, without prejudice consent order that had placed the children in the primary care of the respondent father and paternal grandparents due to the mother's drug addiction and PTSD.

After three years of treatment, the mother sought temporary sole custody.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer recommended returning the children to the mother, citing the father's ongoing substance abuse issues and the grandparents' inability to co-parent with the mother.

The court held that because the prior order was made on a 'without prejudice' basis, the mother was not required to prove a material change in circumstances under s. 29 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court also ruled that a critique of the OCL report tendered by the father was inadmissible.

Finding that the mother was best equipped to meet the children's needs and foster their relationship with the father's family, the court granted temporary sole custody to the mother with a specified access schedule for the respondents.