Marvin A. Zuker

The accused, a graduate student at York University, was charged with sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant, also a graduate student, alleged that after an evening of drinking at two bars with mutual friends, the accused sexually assaulted her at his apartment without her consent.

The accused's defence was that the sexual activity was consensual, characterizing the complainant as the sexual aggressor throughout the evening.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence as incredible and unbelievable, finding it inconsistent with the probabilities and the complainant's credible testimony.

The judge found that the accused, motivated by anger and a desire for control after the complainant's friend declined to join them for a threesome, took advantage of the intoxicated and vulnerable complainant.

The judge convicted the accused of sexual assault, emphasizing that consent requires affirmative communication and that the absence of physical resistance does not constitute consent.

A 19-year-old American citizen was sentenced for his participation in the G-20 riots in Toronto on June 26, 2010.

The accused was convicted of multiple counts of mischief, including damaging police vehicles, retail stores, and financial institutions, as well as wearing a disguise with intent.

The court imposed a sentence of seven months imprisonment (less pre-trial custody) followed by two years probation, with conditions including a ban from Toronto and restitution orders.

The judgment extensively discusses sentencing principles for riot-related offences, balancing deterrence and denunciation against rehabilitation and the accused's youth and remorse.

The applicant brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained as a result of alleged violations of his rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown conceded that the applicant's section 9 Charter rights were violated when he was arrested and detained while driving a vehicle.

The applicant challenged the validity of the search warrant on the basis that the Information to Obtain was misleading and insufficiently corroborated the confidential informant's information.

The court found that while the police acted in good faith, the ITO contained insufficient detail regarding surveillance and failed to establish reasonable and probable grounds.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with three drug-related offences (possession of marijuana, possession for purpose of trafficking, possession of proceeds of crime) and three provincial offences (assaulting a peace officer and two counts of failing to comply with recognizance).

During a traffic stop for a seatbelt violation, a police officer observed the accused with his hand in his jacket pocket and smelled unburned marijuana.

The officer placed his hand on the accused and pushed him back into the vehicle, then subsequently pulled him out to effect an arrest.

A physical altercation ensued.

The trial judge found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to arrest, violated the accused's Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure, and used excessive force.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking Crown wardship for two children (D.H. and P.H.) and a custody order under section 57.1 for a third child (A.W.).

The children had been apprehended following disclosures of physical abuse and neglect by their mother.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking placement with family members.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the Society's motion, making D.H. and P.H. Crown wards and granting custody of A.W. to her father.

The court emphasized that the paramount purpose of child protection legislation is the best interests of the child, not parental rights.

This is a child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act involving an amended protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding a child (A.L.) born in 2010.

The child was apprehended on December 17, 2010, due to the mother's mental health crisis, suicidal ideation, domestic conflict within the parental relationship, and concerns about parental capacity.

The Society sought a Crown wardship order with no access to facilitate adoption.

The parents opposed the application and sought the child's return to their care.

The court found the child was in need of protection but determined that return to the parents with a supervision order was in the child's best interests, rejecting the Society's adoption plan.

The court applied section 70(4) of the CFSA to extend the time for Society wardship to facilitate a gradual transition home over four months.

The applicant was successful in her child support and section 7 expenses claim.

This costs decision addresses the quantum of costs to be awarded to the successful party.

The court found that the applicant acted reasonably and made exhaustive efforts to settle, while the respondent behaved unreasonably and inflexibly.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, fixing the fees component at $9,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, plus an outstanding costs order of $1,000.00 from October 4, 2011.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and should be made Crown wards without access for purposes of adoption.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial and that he had undergone rehabilitation.

The court found that the Society had established a prima facie case based on evidence of the father's extensive criminal history including violent offences, domestic violence against the mother, substance abuse, mental health issues, non-compliance with court orders, and the children's special needs.

The court granted the motion and made the children Crown wards without access.

This is a costs decision following a trial on custody, access, and child support issues.

The applicant sought full recovery costs, arguing she was the successful party and that the respondent refused reasonable settlement offers.

The respondent argued the custody outcome was mixed, with the applicant not obtaining unrestricted sole custody as sought, and that his offers to settle were reasonable.

The court awarded the applicant $9,000 in costs, payable in 24 monthly installments, with $2,250 enforceable as child support through the Family Responsibility Office.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking Crown wardship without access for two children who had been in continuous care of the Society for 24 months.

The respondent parents opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial regarding their capacity to parent the children with appropriate support.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the Society's motion, making both children Crown wards without access.

The decision emphasized the importance of permanence and stability for children in care, the passage of time as a significant factor in child development, and the parents' demonstrated lack of sustained commitment to their children.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to make the child C.S. a Crown ward and place her in the care and custody of the Society.

The respondent mother opposed the motion and sought either dismissal or, alternatively, a short-term Society wardship with transition to her care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted the summary judgment motion, making C.S. a Crown ward.

The decision was based on the mother's intellectual disability, her inability to meet the child's needs consistently, her ongoing relationship with an abusive partner despite court orders prohibiting contact, the child's special needs including global developmental delay and possible fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, and the failure of the parents to demonstrate meaningful change or capacity to parent safely.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory findings that four children were in need of protection and dispositional orders placing two children with their maternal grandparents and two children with their paternal grandmother, subject to Society supervision and specified access conditions.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to have all children returned to her care.

The court granted the summary judgment motion, finding that the mother had failed to demonstrate a genuine issue for trial.

The court found that the mother had not successfully addressed her lifestyle and parenting challenges, remained incapable of forming therapeutic relationships with professionals, and was unable to prioritize the children's needs over her own.

The court made custody orders under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act placing the children with their grandparents, with access to the parents as agreed by the custodians or as specified by the court.

A trial decision on custody, access, and child support for an eight-year-old child born to parents who separated in 2008.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with regular access to the respondent father.

The respondent father sought joint custody with a parallel parenting regime where he would have exclusive decision-making authority over education while the applicant would have authority over extracurricular activities.

The court found that the parties had demonstrated poor judgment in exposing the child to their ongoing conflict and were unable to cooperate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant mother, finding her to be the primary caregiver, while granting the respondent father substantial access rights on a rotating three-week schedule.

The court also ordered child support and addressed special expenses under section 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.