Michael Figol

The accused was tried on allegations arising from a parent's physical intervention during a behavioural crisis involving a child with significant mental health and behavioural issues.

The court found the accused intentionally applied force without actual consent, but held the Crown had not disproved deemed consent arising from reasonable parental care and control in the circumstances.

The court further held that the force fell within s. 43 of the Criminal Code as minor, corrective, and restraining force used to secure medication and time-out compliance, notwithstanding some anger and frustration.

The defence of person under s. 34 failed because the immediate threat had passed, but the accused was acquitted on the basis of deemed consent and s. 43.

The respondent in a family law application was successful in a motion to question two non-parties regarding the applicant's alleged beneficial ownership of a property.

The respondent sought costs of the motion against the non-parties.

The court noted that costs against non-parties are only awarded in unusual circumstances, such as fraud or abuse of process.

Because the allegations of fraud against the non-parties remained unsubstantiated, the court reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge who will ultimately resolve the fraud allegations.

The appellant appealed a conviction for assault arising from an incident involving his spouse, arguing the trial judge misapplied the principles from R. v. W.D. and improperly relied on the complainant’s demeanour to assess credibility.

The case turned on conflicting testimony between the complainant and the accused, supported by photographic evidence of injury.

The court reviewed the trial judge’s reasons and concluded that the proper burden of proof analysis was expressly articulated and applied.

The trial judge’s brief observation about demeanour was expressly minimized as having little or no value.

The court found no error of law or misapplication of the W.D. framework and upheld the conviction.