Michael N. Varpio

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order of Daley J. dated April 12, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding parties fixed at $6,500.

The offender, an Indigenous man, was found guilty of pointing a firearm, assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief to property against his spouse.

The Crown sought an upper reformatory sentence, while the offender sought a conditional sentence based on Gladue factors and his rehabilitative efforts.

The court weighed the need for denunciation and deterrence for spousal abuse involving firearms against the offender's unique background, intergenerational trauma from residential schools, and exceptional progress in counselling.

The court concluded that a combination of punitive and restorative objectives could be met with a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation.

The Father applied for the child to reside with him in Sault Ste.

Marie, Ontario, while the Mother sought to relocate with the child to Schaumburg, Illinois, and have decision-making authority.

The court, applying the amended Divorce Act, found it in the child's best interests to reside permanently with the Mother in Schaumburg, granting her exclusive decision-making authority.

The Father was granted a robust parenting schedule to maintain contact.

The court emphasized the Mother's primary caregiver role and attentiveness versus the Father's relative detachment, while also acknowledging the importance of the child's relationship with his half-sibling.

The Crown applied under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for an order permitting the complainant to testify via CCTV and with the assistance of a support person in an upcoming jury trial for sexual assault.

The complainant testified to severe anxiety and an inability to provide a full account if testifying in person due to the accused's presence.

The court granted the application, finding that the order would facilitate a full and candid account, balancing the accused's right to confrontation with society's interest in truth-seeking and encouraging the reporting of offences.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final order, seeking joint decision-making, week-about parenting time, imputation of income to the respondent mother, and termination of spousal support and child support for their 21-year-old daughter.

The court maintained the mother's sole decision-making authority but increased the father's parenting time to three weekends per month to provide more structure for the boys.

The court imputed a full-time minimum wage income to the mother and ordered spousal support to terminate in September 2023.

The court found the 21-year-old daughter remained a child of the marriage due to her ADHD and pursuit of post-secondary education, despite her estrangement from the father.

Section 7 expenses for extracurricular activities were capped at $1,500 per year.

This criminal trial concerned allegations of sexual assault and controlling behaviour by the accused against the complainant, who was a minor (16/17) at the time of the incidents.

The complainant alleged multiple non-consensual sexual acts, including vaginal, anal, and oral assaults, as well as choking, occurring within an otherwise romantic relationship.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible despite its scattered presentation and incremental disclosure, attributing these to her youth, mental health issues, and the abusive nature of the relationship.

The accused's testimony was entirely rejected due to numerous inconsistencies, fantastical claims, and attempts to tailor his evidence.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused brought an application to sever an animal cruelty charge from an indictment that also included two counts of sexual assault and one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm.

The accused argued that the presence of the animal cruelty charge could cause prejudice.

The court granted the severance, finding that the emotionally powerful evidence related to the animal cruelty, combined with the complexity of the numerous sexual assault allegations, created a significant risk of the jury engaging in forbidden propensity reasoning.

This risk was deemed to outweigh the public interest in a single trial, especially given the lack of a strong nexus between the animal cruelty and sexual assault counts.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to satisfy undertakings to use "best efforts" to locate two witnesses and provide will-say statements.

The plaintiffs initially provided no details of their efforts.

After an adjournment, the plaintiffs filed an affidavit detailing searches of invoices, the internet, LinkedIn, and Canada411.

The defendants argued the plaintiffs should have "cold called" other contractors in the area.

The court found that "best efforts" does not require exhausting every conceivable avenue and held the undertakings were satisfied, dismissing the motion.

However, because the plaintiffs failed to provide evidence of their efforts until after the motion was brought, the court awarded costs of $1,275 to the defendants.

The sentencing hearing was scheduled to proceed, but the Gladue Report prepared by Aboriginal Legal Services arrived the evening before the hearing.

Defence counsel requested an adjournment to review the 30-page report with the accused.

The court granted the adjournment on consent, noting the importance of Gladue Reports and the need for timely filing, particularly given the value of court time during the pandemic.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Ontario Media Development Corporation (OMDC) denying a film tax credit on the basis that its production, Reflections, was not a 'documentary'.

The applicant argued the OMDC's interpretation was unreasonable and fettered by anti-evangelical Christian bias.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard from Vavilov and found the OMDC's interpretation of 'documentary' and its application to the production were reasonable.

The court also dismissed the allegations of bias and procedural unfairness.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Lococo J. The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered costs payable forthwith to the plaintiffs in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The applicant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of the lower court judge.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the applicant in the amount of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an order of the lower court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST to the responding party.

The appellants appealed the dismissal of their application to declare a municipal election invalid.

They argued the removal of 1,131 names from the preliminary voters' list constituted an irregularity under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellants failed to adduce evidence that any voters were disenfranchised or that the presiding justice erred in concluding no irregularity occurred.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals on impaired driving and 'over 80' charges.

The trial judge had excluded breath samples under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding a s. 8 breach, and acquitted on the impaired charge due to a reasonable doubt caused by head trauma.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed palpable and overriding errors by failing to consider the accused's admission of drunkenness when assessing the officer's reasonable and probable grounds, and by improperly applying voir dire evidence to the trial proper.

A new trial was ordered.