Martin S. James

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to provide his 2016 notice of assessment as required by a previous court order.

The respondent claimed he provided a tax assessment in a bag during an access exchange, but the court found this method of service unacceptable and the document insufficient.

The court found the respondent in contempt, ordered him to provide his 2016 and 2017 notices of assessment, and awarded costs of $2,500 to the applicant.

The parties brought competing motions regarding the selection of an assessor and the scope of a court-ordered views of the child report for their 15-year-old daughter.

The applicant father sought a more expansive hybrid assessment, while the respondent mother had inappropriately contacted her preferred nominee directly.

Given the complications, controversy, and expense generated by the initial order, the court dismissed both motions and amended its previous order to delete the requirement for a court-ordered report, leaving it to the parties to obtain one on a mutually agreeable basis if they choose.

Joseph Couvieau was convicted of two counts of assault and two counts of failing to comply with a probation order, stemming from domestic violence incidents.

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record with prior domestic assaults and breaches of probation, and mitigating factors such as employment and support for his father.

Denunciation and specific deterrence were the controlling sentencing principles.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 months' incarceration, followed by three years of probation with specific conditions, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

This is a costs endorsement following a contempt motion in a family law proceeding.

The applicant was partially successful on the contempt motion and sought full, substantial, or partial indemnity costs.

The court found a reasonable basis for the motion due to the respondent's poor communication, but also noted the applicant's somewhat oppressive requests.

The applicant was awarded fixed costs of $1,200, payable forthwith by the respondent.

The respondent father brought a motion for a stay of enforcement pending an appeal of a temporary order that changed primary parenting responsibility of the parties' 7-year-old daughter to the applicant mother.

The father argued the motion judge erred in refusing an adjournment, lacked jurisdiction, and failed to maintain the status quo.

The court dismissed the motion for a stay, finding the motion judge's refusal of an adjournment was entitled to deference, the jurisdictional argument lacked merit under rule 15(28), and compliance with the temporary order would not cause irreparable harm while the balance of convenience favoured leaving the child in the mother's care pending trial.

The respondent brought a motion for the sale of the jointly-owned family home and equal division of proceeds, challenging a prior vesting order in favour of the applicant.

The parties were unmarried but had children together.

The respondent's pleadings had previously been struck for failure to disclose.

The court corrected a calculation error from a previous endorsement regarding the home's equity and post-separation expenses, resulting in a small deficit which the court treated as a wash.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to contest the vesting order, finding it inappropriate given his failure to pay outstanding costs orders, child support arrears, and consistent disregard for court orders.

The plaintiffs sued the school board, a vice-principal, and a former student for events that occurred in September 2009, alleging false imprisonment, malicious intent, and negligence after the plaintiff student was arrested for uttering threats.

The court found the defendants' evidence credible, rejected the plaintiffs' allegations of a grudge or malicious intent by the vice-principal, and concluded the confinement of the student during the investigation was justified.

The action was dismissed.

The applicant brought a motion to adjourn a family law trial scheduled to proceed in four weeks due to her counsel's competing trial commitment.

The respondent opposed the adjournment, citing his age, health, and the stress of ongoing litigation, as well as the applicant's counsel's neglect in addressing the scheduling conflict earlier.

The court weighed the prejudice to both parties and the broader public interest, concluding that the potential prejudice to the applicant of proceeding without counsel outweighed the inconvenience to the respondent, which could be compensated in costs.

The trial was adjourned to the fall sittings, peremptory to the applicant, with submissions requested on whether the applicant's counsel should personally bear the costs.

The appellant appealed his convictions for dangerous driving and criminal harassment, arguing the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons, misapprehended evidence, and relied on inconsistent testimony from the complainant.

The charges arose from incidents following the separation of the parties, including the appellant cutting off the complainant's vehicle and following her on multiple occasions.

The summary conviction appeal court found that the trial judge's findings were supported by the uncontradicted evidence of the complainant and that the trial judge adequately addressed any minor discrepancies in the testimony.

The appeal was dismissed.

The accused was tried on a 7-count indictment involving allegations of domestic assault, mischief, and breach of probation against his former partner.

The court applied the W(D) framework to assess credibility, noting inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence but finding her credible regarding two specific assaults (chest bumping and head butting).

The accused was found guilty of two counts of assault and two counts of breach of probation, but acquitted of one count of assault and one count of mischief.

A charge of unlawful confinement was withdrawn.

The applicant mother brought a motion to increase the respondent father's child support payments to 50% of his net pay to accelerate the repayment of arrears.

The father had been paying ongoing support and a voluntary amount towards arrears.

The court dismissed the request to increase the arrears repayment rate, finding the current rate reasonable.

The court ordered an adjustment to the ongoing child support based on the father's 2016 income and updated guidelines, without prejudice to the father's right to challenge the older child's ongoing entitlement.

Costs of $300 were awarded to the respondent father.

The moving party mother brought a motion seeking week-about parenting time for her two children, aged 15 and 8.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer reported that the older child preferred visiting every second Saturday, and the younger child preferred day visits only due to anxiety.

The court dismissed the request for week-about parenting, ordering day visits for the younger child on Saturdays and maintaining the current arrangement for the older child.

No costs were awarded.

The applicant brought a motion to continue a certificate of pending litigation on a property she previously resided in.

She claimed an interest in the property through an unproven constructive trust and alleged that the respondent's sale of the fire-damaged property to a third party was a fraudulent conveyance.

The court found the applicant's claim to an interest in the land to be tenuous and noted the absence of typical badges of fraud.

The motion was dismissed and the certificate of pending litigation was ordered vacated.

The applicant father brought a motion for access to his two children, whom he had not seen for nearly a year and a half due to a no-contact order following criminal convictions for assaulting and threatening them.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to appoint the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) and dismiss the access motion pending the OCL's recommendations.

The court ordered that the OCL be requested to ascertain the children's views and preferences, with a private psychotherapist to be engaged if the OCL declined.

The no-contact order was modified to accommodate the involvement of the OCL or the therapist.

Costs were reserved.

This is an addendum to a sentencing decision.

The court converted the offender's sentence from months to days to properly reflect the credit for pre-trial custody on a count-by-count basis.

The total sentence before credit was calculated as 3242 days, with 1965 days of credit, leaving an actual sentence of 1277 days.

The offender pleaded guilty to six counts of sexual assault and three counts of voyeurism involving nine victims.

The offences involved surreptitiously recording and sexually touching women while they were asleep or unaware.

The Crown sought a global sentence of 12 years and 10 months and a long-term offender designation with a 10-year supervision order.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8.9 years, reduced to 42 months going forward after credit for pre-sentence custody.

The court also designated the offender as a long-term offender, imposing a 6-year supervision order, finding a substantial risk of re-offending that could eventually be controlled in the community.

The self-represented accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

He was charged with intimidation of a justice system participant, and the anticipated time from charge to trial was 33 months.

The court found that a four-month delay during the preliminary hearing was attributable to the accused, as he failed to complete his cross-examination in the allotted time and subsequently waived the remainder after an adjournment.

Deducting this defence delay brought the net delay below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought access to the phone and social media records of her deceased son to investigate the unknown circumstances surrounding his death.

The service providers required legal authorization to release the information due to privacy concerns.

The court designated the applicant as the personal representative of her son and ordered Bell Mobility, Google Canada, Facebook, and Apple Canada to disclose the requested records and accounts, notwithstanding privacy legislation.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking an order to compel the applicant mother to cooperate with an update to a Custody/Access Assessment and to share the cost of the update.

The respondent also sought an order requiring the applicant to sign consents for the release of the children's medical and educational records.

The court ordered the applicant to cooperate with the update to ensure the trial could proceed as scheduled, but directed the respondent to pay the cost of the update.

The court also ordered the applicant to execute the requested consents.

The offender pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault after stabbing three people at a New Year's Eve party.

The 25-year-old offender had a lengthy criminal record including 13 prior assault convictions.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the unprovoked nature of the attack and the severe impact on the victims.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of approximately 62 months, reduced to 38 months net after credit for pre-sentence custody.