Mark Van Walleghem

The accused was charged with breach of recognizance for failing to comply with a condition not to communicate directly or indirectly with staff of the Ignace School.

The Crown sought to introduce evidence of an IP address obtained from Facebook as proof that threatening messages were sent from the accused's residence.

The central issue was the admissibility of the IP address evidence, which was initially challenged as hearsay.

The court initially found the Crown had not established necessity and reliability on the voir dire.

However, after the Crown obtained an affidavit from a Facebook records custodian confirming the IP address was stored electronically and contemporaneously with the message, the court found the evidence admissible as a business record under the Canada Evidence Act and common law.

The applicants sought a restraining order against the respondents, requesting that they be restrained from directly or indirectly contacting the applicants or their child, and from coming within 200 metres of the applicants, the child, or their residences, schools, or places of employment.

The applicants alleged a history of domestic violence, harassment, and inappropriate conduct.

The respondents sought dismissal of the application with costs.

The court found no objective factual basis for the applicants' fears, noting that allegations of abuse and assault had not been substantiated by authorities, and that the applicants' evidence lacked credibility.

The court dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with sexual interference and sexual assault involving a minor child.

The complainant initially provided a video statement alleging sexual touching but later recanted and testified that no sexual assault occurred.

The court admitted the prior statement under the KGB framework but excluded proposed similar fact evidence from another daughter under the Handy test.

Applying the W(D.) credibility framework, the judge accepted the accused’s explanation that any contact occurred inadvertently while attempting to wake the complainant.

The Crown failed to establish the elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with sexual touching of a person under sixteen and sexual assault following an incident on August 19, 2011.

The complainant, his fourteen-year-old daughter, initially provided a detailed video statement to police describing inappropriate touching.

At trial, she recanted her allegations, stating her video statement was false and inaccurate.

The accused testified that he had inadvertently touched the complainant's crotch area while attempting to tickle her awake in a dark room, with no sexual intent.

The court found the Crown had not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted on both counts.

The parties, who separated in 1991 after a traditional marriage, both brought motions to change a 1993 spousal support order.

The moving party sought to terminate his $500 monthly spousal support obligation, citing his retirement, health issues, and the responding party's improved financial position.

The responding party brought a cross-motion seeking an increase in support due to inflation and ongoing economic disadvantage.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that neither party had met the threshold burden of establishing a material change in circumstances that would justify varying the existing order.

A custody and relocation dispute involving a three-year-old child.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate to Alberta with the child to join her current partner, while the respondent father sought sole custody or, alternatively, a restraint on relocation.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother and permitted relocation to Alberta, finding that the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth, maintained a strong bond with the child, and had legitimate reasons for the move.

The father's involvement had been limited and sporadic, and his conduct was characterized by immaturity and lack of child focus.

Child support arrears were addressed and ongoing support was set at the guideline amount.