Martin S. James

The court ruled on the admissibility of two purported prescriptions during a criminal trial.

The documents, introduced by defence counsel during cross-examination of a doctor's secretary, were questioned for authenticity by co-accused's counsel.

The court found that the witness's testimony, which appeared to accept the documents' representation, coupled with the difficulty of assessing her evidence without the documents, warranted their admission as numbered exhibits for a limited purpose, rejecting defence arguments for non-admission or identification-only marking.

This is a voir dire ruling on the admissibility of pharmacy records as business records under section 30 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The documents in question included fax copies of prescriptions and computer-generated "prescription hard copies" some with handwritten notes.

The court found that these documents met the five prerequisite conditions for admissibility as business records: they were original entries, made contemporaneously, in the course of normal business routine, by persons under a duty to record, and without a motive to misrepresent.

The court also addressed the notice requirement under subsection 30(7), finding that sufficient notice was given or, alternatively, dispensing with the formal notice requirement.

The records were admitted into evidence.

This endorsement addresses multiple motions brought by both the applicant and respondent concerning parenting arrangements for their 10-year-old son.

The applicant sought an order for the respondent to comply with the access schedule and for the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL).

The respondent sought leave to amend pleadings, to strike certain evidence, and an order for no contact between the child and the applicant's spouse.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for OCL involvement and an adjournment of the hearing.

It granted the respondent leave to amend pleadings and to strike evidence (both on consent).

Regarding the no-contact request, the court imposed a temporary condition that the child not be left alone with the applicant's spouse, rather than a full no-contact order.

Access for the applicant was ordered to resume immediately.

The court issued a costs endorsement following an 8-day jury trial for damages from a motor vehicle accident.

The self-represented plaintiff was unsuccessful, with the jury awarding $10,000 in general damages but nothing for lost income or future housekeeping.

A threshold motion was granted, disentitling the plaintiff from general damages.

The defendant sought partial indemnity costs.

The court allowed the defendant's claim for fees but reduced disbursements due to lack of receipts or explanation, awarding a total of $80,980.99 to the defendant.

The applicant sought to correct a previous consent order regarding the division of the respondent's pension under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, specifically concerning the accrual of interest.

The applicant argued for 2% compound interest, citing a mistake in the original order which omitted the agreed-upon interest rate from settlement offers.

The court, applying principles of contract law and rectification, found that the parties had indeed agreed to 2% simple interest, not compound, and ordered the amendment of the original order to reflect 2% simple interest from the date of separation.

The offender was convicted of forgery and obstruction of justice after submitting a forged letter of support from her employer during a sentencing hearing for a previous fraud conviction.

The Crown sought a three-year custodial sentence, while the defence proposed 12 to 18 months.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, noting the offender's premeditated attempt to deceive the court and her prior criminal record.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 20 months' imprisonment, followed by 12 months of probation.

The Crown's request for a DNA order was denied.

The applicant sought costs of $15,219.55 following a partially successful motion to change that terminated child support retroactively and ordered the respondent to repay $8,880.

The respondent, who was self-represented and had modest income, faced significant financial hardship from the substantive order.

Despite the applicant's favourable offers to settle, the court declined to award costs, finding that requiring the respondent to pay costs would constitute an unjustifiable hardship.

This costs endorsement followed a temporary motion heard on August 29, 2018.

The motion addressed the respondent's request to adjust mid-week access and for a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act, and the applicant's issue regarding child care expenses.

The court found the applicant's refusal to accommodate access changes unreasonable, but also deemed the respondent's request for a section 30 assessment unreasonable given the recent final settlement.

The child care costs issue was resolved in the respondent's favour.

Both parties sought costs.

Considering the factors outlined in the Family Law Rules, the specific sequence of events, the parties' positions, and the outcome of the motion, the court determined that there should be no order respecting costs.

The respondent, Anna Romanov, brought a motion to change an existing consent order regarding custody and access, seeking sole custody, changes to access arrangements, child support adjustments, section 7 expenses, and a restraining order.

The applicant, Kevin James Allan, opposed the motion, arguing no material change in circumstances had occurred.

The court found no material change in circumstances to justify altering the custody and access provisions, dismissing that part of the motion.

However, the court granted Ms. Romanov's requests for adjusted child support, reimbursement for medical/dental expenses, payment of section 7 arrears, an insurance compensation payment due to Mr. Allan's non-compliance with a life insurance order, mandatory use of "My Family Wizard" for communications, and a restraining order against Mr. Allan due to a past aggressive incident.

This is a costs endorsement following an 18-day jury trial that concluded as a judge-alone trial, where liability was resolved in favour of the defendants.

The defendants sought substantial indemnity costs, citing the plaintiffs' unfounded accusations of malice, dishonesty, and misfeasance, as well as counsel's prolix and repetitive trial conduct.

The plaintiffs argued for partial indemnity, alleging excessive lawyering, spoliation, and impecuniosity.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the school board defendants, finding the plaintiffs' conduct warranted it, but reduced certain disbursements and capped the primary plaintiff's liability at $100,000.

The court affirmed that impecuniosity is generally not a sufficient reason to displace the rule that costs follow the event, especially for unmeritorious claims.

The applicant, a grandmother, sought a temporary order for access to her 5-year-old granddaughter.

The parents and other family members opposed the motion, citing concerns about the applicant's disrespect for parental decisions, promotion of religious views, and attempts to facilitate contact with an estranged aunt.

The court, applying the principles from *Chapman v. Chapman*, found that the parents were attentive, capable, and loving, and had not shown an inability to act in the child's best interests.

The court determined that the parents' decision to limit access was not arbitrary or unreasonable, despite the potential impact on the grandmother-granddaughter relationship.

The motion for temporary access was dismissed.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the applicant sought costs for the entire proceeding.

The applicant served offers to settle that compared well with the results achieved, and the respondent's uncooperative approach increased costs.

The court found the requested amount of $62,100.71 to be reasonable and proportional, and ordered the respondent to pay this amount forthwith.

This is a costs endorsement arising from an interim motion where the applicant was substantially successful on relocation and shared parenting issues.

The applicant sought costs on a full or substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered the applicant's success, the reasonableness of counsel's hourly rate, a good offer to settle made by the applicant, and the respondent's inability to pay.

Costs were fixed at $14,000, inclusive of taxes and disbursements, payable by the respondent within 90 days.

The accused, Kathleen Thur, was charged with fraud, obstruction of justice, and forgery.

These charges arose from her alleged creation and submission of a forged letter of support from her employer, the Mayor of McGarry Township, during her sentencing hearing for a prior fraud conviction.

The central issue was whether the Mayor had signed the second, more specific letter of support, or if Ms. Thur had forged his signature.

The court found Ms. Thur to be an incredible witness, citing her history of dishonesty and evasive testimony.

Conversely, the Mayor's testimony was found credible.

Despite inconclusive expert handwriting analysis, the court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Thur prepared and signed the second letter without the Mayor's knowledge or approval, and submitted it to mislead the court.

Ms. Thur was found guilty of uttering a forged document and obstructing justice, but not guilty of fraud due to insufficient evidence of deprivation.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order regarding parenting time for their son and sought a needs assessment under section 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant mother opposed these requests and sought sole custody, reduced parenting time for the father, or permission to relocate to Florida.

The court granted the father's request to alter mid-week access due to a material change in his work schedule, replacing two daytime visits with a weekly overnight visit.

The request for a section 30 assessment was dismissed as the parenting regime was recently agreed upon and the situation was not materially different.

The court also clarified daycare expense sharing, finding the applicant was not entitled to a credit for the respondent's delay in applying for a subsidy, and ordered the respondent to pay a small outstanding amount.

The main proceeding was scheduled for trial.

This costs endorsement relates to an unsuccessful motion brought by the respondent to stay the enforcement of a temporary order concerning parenting arrangements, pending an appeal.

The court applied the general rule that costs follow the event, finding no compelling reasons to depart from this practice.

Consequently, the applicant, as the successful party in the underlying motion, was awarded partial indemnity costs.

This is a costs endorsement following the applicant's unsuccessful motion to adjourn a trial.

The respondent sought costs thrown away due to the adjournment and costs for responding to the motion.

The court found the respondent's refusal to consent to the adjournment reasonable, citing the applicant's disclosure failures, missed deadlines, and unexplained delays.

The court awarded the respondent costs thrown away and substantial indemnity costs for the motion, payable by the applicant.

The court declined to order costs personally against the applicant's counsel, despite her neglect, emphasizing the high threshold for such orders.

The applicant and respondent brought cross-motions concerning the respondent's unilateral relocation with the children from Eganville to Ottawa.

The court considered the children's best interests, applying principles from mobility cases.

It found that the respondent had not demonstrated a valid and compelling parent-based reason for the move and that remaining in Eganville offered identifiable benefits for the children, including easier contact with their father and paternal grandparents, and stability for the older child.

The court ordered the respondent to re-establish residency near Eganville within 60 days, failing which the children would reside with the applicant.

A shared parenting regime was ordered upon the respondent's return.

The applicant brought a motion to freeze funds removed from a joint investment account and for an accounting.

The respondent had transferred the entire joint account, derived from the sale of his farm, to his sole control.

The applicant argued the funds were joint property, while the respondent claimed they were for estate planning and his sole income source.

The court, applying Section 14 of the Family Law Act, found that while some control was necessary, the applicant's request for a full freeze was overreaching.

A preservation order was issued for one half the account's value at separation, with conditions proposed by the respondent, reflecting the historical pattern of usage.

Costs were fixed in the cause.

The applicant brought a summary judgment motion seeking orders for parenting arrangements, child support, and reimbursement for matrimonial home expenses.

The court granted joint custody of the two children, with primary residence to the applicant, and access to the respondent based on the children's wishes.

The respondent was ordered to pay $2,788.98 in child support for 2014 and provide income disclosure for subsequent years.

The court also ordered the respondent to reimburse the applicant $4,541.69 for insurance premiums and realty taxes related to the matrimonial home.

Furthermore, the respondent was required to designate the applicant as the irrevocable beneficiary of her life insurance policy in trust for the children.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on these matters, dismissing other claims, and allowed the applicant to request an uncontested divorce.