5 total
Acquittals entered on all counts.
The accused was tried on charges of sexual interference, voyeurism, and making child pornography arising from allegations involving his daughter.
The court held that the complainant's evidence on the sexual interference count was not sufficiently reliable to ground a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly given contradictions with photographic evidence concerning timing, location, opportunity, and surrounding circumstances.
On the image-based counts, the Crown conceded the child pornography charge because there was no evidence of sexual purpose.
Applying the contextual privacy analysis from Jarvis, the court concluded that a father's alleged act of photographing his sleeping children in bed, absent sexual purpose or covert impropriety, did not amount to voyeurism under s. 162(1)(a).
Motion for production of documents adjourned by one day; third party involvement deemed unnecessary.
The applicant brought a motion for production of documents.
During a case conference, the respondents' counsel advised of a scheduling conflict and requested time to ascertain the position of third parties.
The court found the third parties' involvement unnecessary for the motion, adjourned the motion by one day to accommodate counsel's schedule, and set a timetable for the respondents' factum.
Motion for production of documents scheduled following alleged breach of injunction by respondents.
The applicant requested an adjournment of the application to bring a motion for production of further documentation after discovering the respondents made payments to third parties following a previously ordered injunction.
The court scheduled the motion for production of documents and set a timetable for the exchange of materials and cross-examinations.
The court also noted that if third parties consent, an order may be submitted to have the funds paid into court.
Respondents ordered to produce unredacted bank statements to comply with prior production order.
The applicant sought directions at a case conference regarding the respondents' failure to produce bank records as required by a prior court order.
The applicant claimed no statements were produced, while the respondents claimed full compliance.
The court directed the respondents to produce the unredacted bank statements relating to the receipt and disbursement of the funds in issue by a specified date, noting that a judge at a case conference has jurisdiction to make procedural and interlocutory orders under Rule 50.13(6).
Court sets timetable for Application regarding erroneous payment and schedules motion to consolidate.
Rogers brought an Application seeking the return of $876,095.04 allegedly paid in error to the respondents.
At a case conference, the respondents objected to the presiding judge scheduling or hearing the Application, arguing the judge was acting as a case management judge under Rule 77.06.
The court held that Rule 77 did not apply but voluntarily declined to hear the Application.
The court proceeded to set a timetable for the Application and scheduled the respondents' motion to consolidate the Application with an existing action between the parties.
