Michael G. March

The respondent brought a motion seeking a declaration that North Bay is the proper jurisdiction, return of the children to the District of Nipissing, interim custody, and alternative weekend access.

The applicant opposed the transfer and brought a cross-motion for a restraining order.

The court found that the children's ordinary residence is Mattawa in the District of Nipissing, where they had lived their entire lives prior to being taken by the applicant without warning.

The court determined there was no immediate danger to justify hearing the case elsewhere and transferred the matter to North Bay.

The court found the applicant's allegations of assault lacked credibility, noting the Crown had discharged the respondent at his preliminary inquiry.

The restraining order motion was adjourned to be heard in the proper jurisdiction.

The accused was charged with mischief under section 430(4) of the Criminal Code for wilfully damaging an exterior door at his ex-wife's residence on November 10, 2017.

The accused attended early for a scheduled child custody exchange and, after being refused early pickup, allegedly kicked and banged on the door.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's testimony that the accused caused damage through persistent kicking.

The court found that while the accused's conduct was boorish and persistent, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he wilfully or recklessly caused the damage.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of a child born in 2016, supervised access for the respondent, child support, permission to travel, and permission to relocate.

The respondent, who struggles with mental health issues including post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and anxiety and depression, was represented by duty counsel.

The court granted the motion, awarding sole custody to the applicant, liberal and general access to the respondent at the applicant's discretion, child support of $25 per month, permission to travel with notice, and permission to relocate within 100 kilometres.

The accused brought a Dawson application seeking leave to cross-examine Detective Constable St. Cyr on his Information to Obtain (ITO) for a search warrant of the accused's residence.

The court considered whether proposed cross-examination would assist in determining material issues, particularly the sufficiency of grounds for the warrant and the credibility and reliability of the confidential informants upon which the affiant relied.

The court granted partial leave to cross-examine on specific areas including clarification of terminology, the relevance of prior police occurrences, the length of time confidential informants were assigned numbers, and the basis for the affiant's assertions regarding informant credibility.

Family and Children's Services of Renfrew County brought an emergency motion seeking to place access between the respondent father and the three subject children in the Society's discretion.

The motion arose following a conflict between two of the children regarding an allegation of sexual touching made by one child against the father.

The father's inability to move past the allegation and his characterization of the child as a liar created significant emotional distress for all three children, with two threatening self-harm.

The court granted the motion in part, restricting the father's access to the middle child while maintaining access with the two other children, and ordered the father not to discuss the proceedings with any of his children.

The applicant brought a motion to change custody and access orders four days after the court determined that the child was habitually resident in Quebec.

The applicant sought to invoke the exception to habitual residence under section 22(1)(b) of the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the determination of habitual residence was res judicata and that the applicant had not demonstrated that the basis for the jurisdiction decision had changed.

The child had lived in Quebec for three years, attended school there, and had established substantial connections to that province.

The court directed future custody and access matters to be litigated in Quebec.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The defence brought Charter applications challenging the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence of six months imprisonment, alleging breaches of s. 12 (cruel and unusual punishment) and s. 7 (arbitrary deprivation of liberty) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected both Charter challenges and upheld the mandatory minimum as constitutional.

Mitchell, who is paraplegic, received a sentence of ten months imprisonment; Clouthier received nine months.

Both were subject to two years of probation and ancillary orders including DNA sampling, forfeiture of devices, SOIRA registration, and s. 161 prohibitions.

The accused was charged with mischief for wilfully damaging a window at the residence of her former common-law partner on the Pikwakanagan Reserve.

The Crown alleged the damage occurred during a confrontation when the accused arrived to drop off their infant child.

The accused testified she did not intend to damage the window and did not see it break.

The court applied the W.D. credibility analysis and found the accused's evidence not credible and unable to raise a reasonable doubt.

Based on circumstantial evidence and the timing of events, the court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of mischief.

The applicant sought joint custody of his young son, week-about shared access, and a reduction in child support obligations.

The court dismissed all motions, finding that joint custody was not in the child's best interests at the present time given the child's young age (21 months) and limited bonding with his father.

The court upheld the child support obligation of $313.00 per month as determined by the Child Support Guidelines, finding no basis for undue hardship.

The court indicated that increased access and eventual joint custody might be possible in the future as the child grows and bonds with his father, but not at the present time.

The applicant sought an interim order for custody of the child, N., following a prior final order granting custody to the respondent.

The applicant had previously struggled with substance abuse but had successfully rehabilitated herself, completed treatment programs, obtained stable employment, and was in a supportive relationship.

The respondent had failed to meaningfully participate in the proceedings, had denied access to the applicant for an extended period, and the child had experienced significant neglect including excessive school absences, poor dental hygiene, and developmental concerns.

The court granted interim custody to the applicant, finding it was in the child's best interest, while maintaining the respondent's access rights on a structured basis.

The accused was convicted of extortion and sexual assault following a six-day trial, and subsequently pleaded guilty to multiple additional charges including breaches of probation, criminal harassment, uttering threats, luring minors, and making sexually explicit material available to minors.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day, with the accused having received credit for pre-sentence custody.

The sentencing considered the offender's borderline intelligence, his pattern of targeting young women and girls through online manipulation, and the serious harm caused to the victim.

The court balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, with emphasis on treatment at a specialized facility.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found asleep in the passenger seat of a vehicle in a ditch.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results obtained more than two hours after the alleged offence, thereby losing the statutory presumption of identity.

The Crown attempted to rely on expert opinion evidence to extrapolate the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of the alleged offence.

The court found that the Crown failed to establish the factual assumptions underlying the expert opinion and rejected the Crown's invitation to perform retrograde extrapolation calculations.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused, a 57-year-old retired Master Warrant Officer of the Canadian Forces, pleaded guilty to sexual touching of his 14-year-old step-granddaughter contrary to section 151(b) of the Criminal Code.

The offence involved digital penetration and occurred during a snow day at the accused's residence.

The court imposed a sentence of seven months imprisonment followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a 10-year SOIRA order, and a five-year section 161 order.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and the breach of trust against the accused's early guilty plea, genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and positive sexual behaviour assessment indicating low risk of reoffence.

The defence brought a Dawson application seeking leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) at the accused's preliminary inquiry.

The defence sought to question the officer on four areas, including the confidential informant's criminal record, the informant's inability to name the suspect, the outcome of prior police involvement at the residence, and any exchange with the authorizing Justice of the Peace.

The court granted the application, finding that the proposed cross-examination was relevant, material, and would not jeopardize confidential informant privilege.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation for the respondent following his conviction for sexual touching of a 13-year-old girl contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the respondent constituted a threat to the physical and mental wellbeing of others based on a pattern of repetitive sexual behaviour showing a failure to restrain and a likelihood to inflict severe psychological damage, as well as a pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour showing substantial indifference to the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his conduct.

The court rejected arguments for lesser measures, finding that community-based supervision and treatment could not adequately protect the public.

The respondent was designated a dangerous offender and sentenced to indeterminate detention in a penitentiary.

The accused was charged with extortion and sexual assault.

The primary issue was whether the complainant, a young woman with intellectual disabilities, properly identified the accused as the person who extorted her into sending nude photographs and subsequently sexually assaulted her at a marina.

The Crown's case rested entirely on identification evidence.

The accused denied ever meeting the complainant or engaging in any of the alleged conduct.

The court found the complainant's identification credible and reliable, distinguishing this case from typical eyewitness identification cases because the complainant had a photograph of the accused before meeting him in person.

The court rejected the accused's denials as implausible and found him guilty of both counts.

The accused were arrested based on a confidential informant tip indicating they possessed cocaine and oxycodone.

The Crown charged Adams with possession of oxycodone contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Harkness with possession for the purpose of trafficking and trafficking in oxycodone.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and subsequent searches on Charter grounds.

The court found that the arrest lacked reasonable and probable grounds, being based on a tip that spoke only of "possibilities" rather than credibly based probability.

The court also found violations of the right to counsel and unreasonable searches of the accused's person and cell phone.

All evidence obtained as a result of these violations was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to Section 266 of the Criminal Code following an incident on April 3, 2017.

The accused and the complainant were in a former intimate relationship and were engaged in a custody dispute over their seven-year-old son.

During an access visit, a heated argument arose regarding the child's school behaviour.

When the complainant's daughter intervened, the accused applied force to the complainant's chest with his fingertips, causing her to step back.

The accused claimed he made only a waving gesture to move past the complainant.

The court found the accused guilty of assault, characterizing it as technical and of an exceedingly minor nature, but nonetheless constituting the intentional application of force without consent.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown's case relied on observations from truck stop employees who reported a suspected impaired driver, police observations of the accused's vehicle and physical condition, and breath analysis results.

The defence challenged the reliability of the approved screening device test on Charter grounds, arguing the officer failed to consider the possibility of mouth alcohol contamination.

The court found no Charter breach, as the officer reasonably concluded no evidence suggested recent alcohol consumption within 15 minutes of the test.

The court convicted the accused on both counts based on the totality of evidence demonstrating impairment.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a 93-year-old resident of a long-term care facility between October 31, 2012 and October 7, 2015.

The complainant did not testify due to advanced age and frail health.

The Crown sought to introduce hearsay statements made by the complainant to facility staff on October 5-6, 2015 and a videotaped statement to police on October 7, 2015.

The trial judge conducted a blended voir dire/trial to determine the admissibility of these out-of-court statements under the reliability criterion established in R. v. Khelawon and R. v. Youvarajah.

The court found that none of the statements met the threshold reliability test due to significant concerns about the complainant's mental capacity, confusion, and lack of adequate substitute for cross-examination.