Michel Z. Charbonneau

The applicant, 1750738 Ontario Inc., sought specific performance of a verbal contract against the respondent corporations.

The verbal contract stipulated that Hervé Lacroix would invest in a real estate development project (Oasis) on the condition that his son's company, Maisons Lacroix Homes Inc., would construct 25% of the lots.

The respondents later terminated this arrangement.

The court found that the verbal contract existed, was ratified by 1750739 Ontario Inc. despite preceding its incorporation, was sufficiently certain, and was not precluded by the Statute of Frauds due to part performance.

Furthermore, a "whole agreement" clause in a subsequent shareholders' agreement did not terminate the verbal contract, given the circumstances of its signing and the lack of independent legal advice for Lacroix.

The court also found no convincing evidence of serious misconduct by Maisons Lacroix Homes Inc. that would justify termination.

The court granted specific performance, annulling the termination decision and ordering the allocation of 25% of lots to Maisons Lacroix Homes Inc.

This case involved a continuation of a confirmation hearing under the Divorce Act regarding a New Brunswick provisional order to resume spousal support for the respondent due to post-traumatic stress disorder.

The applicant, the former husband, challenged the confirmation.

The court found that the complex medical expert evidence concerning the respondent's PTSD and its causation could not be adequately assessed in a bifurcated hearing, thus failing to meet the threshold requirements of section 18(2) of the Divorce Act.

Consequently, the provisional order was not confirmed, but the respondent retained the right to bring a new application to vary without resorting to section 18.

The accused, V.J.L., was charged with two counts of sexual assault involving two complainants, A.G. and J.P. The Crown sought to introduce similar fact evidence, but the court found J.P.'s testimony unreliable due to intellectual challenges and inconsistencies, precluding the admission of similar fact evidence.

Applying the principles from R. v. WD, the court assessed the credibility of both complainants and the accused.

A.G. was found to be a credible and reliable witness, and the accused's denial regarding her assault was deemed improbable.

Consequently, V.J.L. was found guilty of sexually assaulting A.G. However, due to the unreliability and inconsistencies in J.P.'s evidence, the court found it unsafe to convict on the second count, leading to an acquittal for the alleged assault on J.P.

L'accusé, Jacques Lalonde, a plaidé coupable d'avoir communiqué dans le but d'obtenir et obtenu moyennant rétribution les services sexuels d'une personne de moins de dix-huit ans, en violation du paragraphe 212(4) du Code criminel.

La Cour a d'abord examiné une contestation en vertu de la Charte, déclarant la peine minimale obligatoire de six mois prévue par l'article 212(4) inconstitutionnelle et inopérante, car elle pourrait entraîner des peines cruelles et inusitées dans des scénarios hypothétiques raisonnablement prévisibles.

Pour la détermination de la peine, la Cour a pris en compte des facteurs aggravants, notamment des incidents multiples, l'exploitation d'une victime vulnérable et le ciblage d'une jeune fille de 16 ans, ainsi que des facteurs atténuants tels que l'absence d'antécédents judiciaires et l'expression de remords.

La Cour a imposé une peine de 12 mois d'emprisonnement, suivie d'une période de probation de 12 mois avec des conditions spécifiques, une ordonnance de 10 ans en vertu de l'article 161, un prélèvement d'échantillon d'ADN et une inscription de 10 ans au registre des délinquants sexuels.

This motion concerned a justification hearing under section 51(2) of the Child and Family Services Act regarding a temporary order placing two children, R.M. and S.M., in the care of Valoris.

The respondent mother sought to modify the temporary order to return S.M. to her care, subject to Valoris's supervision.

The court found that Valoris met its burden under section 51(3) to demonstrate reasonable grounds to believe S.M. would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's care, and that supervision alone would be insufficient.

Concerns included the mother's inability to address S.M.'s special needs (hygiene, school absenteeism), her volatile relationship with a partner with a history of violence, and the physical discipline of R.M. The motion to return S.M. was dismissed, and the children were ordered to remain in foster care.

The applicant sought interim spousal support and an order for a business evaluation of the respondent's personal service corporation, Finnie Consulting.

The court found the applicant unable to obtain work due to age, educational background, and health issues, while the respondent maintained a stable income.

Interim spousal support of $2,800 per month was ordered, effective January 1, 2017.

The court granted leave for the applicant to obtain an opinion on the corporation's value, rejecting the respondent's argument that it was a joint asset requiring shared evaluation costs.

The defendant brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement, while the plaintiffs cross-moved to dismiss the defendant's motion and enforce the Minutes themselves.

A trial of an issue was held to determine if the plaintiffs had fulfilled their obligations under the settlement.

The court found that the plaintiffs had substantially complied with fence erection terms but failed to complete municipal grading requirements by the agreed deadline, which was an essential term.

Consequently, the plaintiffs were found in breach of the Minutes of Settlement, their motion was dismissed, and the defendant's motion was allowed.

The plaintiffs were ordered to complete the grading work and eliminate fence gaps within 100 days.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order making the child a Crown ward without access.

The child was apprehended at birth due to concerns regarding the parents' intellectual limitations and lack of parenting skills, which had previously led to the apprehension of their older child.

Despite extensive support and supervised visits over two years, the parents were unable to acquire or maintain the necessary parenting skills to safely care for the child.

The court found that the parents lacked the minimal parenting capacity required and that a supervision order would not sufficiently mitigate the risk.

The child was made a Crown ward without access for the purpose of adoption.

This was an interim support motion where the applicant sought child and spousal support from the respondent.

The court found the applicant entitled to spousal support and the respondent obligated to pay child support.

Despite the respondent's claim of lower income, the court was not convinced, noting his operational businesses and substantial retained incomes under his sole control.

The court fixed the respondent's yearly income, on a without prejudice basis, at $130,000 and ordered him to pay child support of $1,781.00 per month and spousal support of $2,000.00 per month, retroactive to April 1, 2016.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a 2004 custody and support order after the parties' child moved primarily into his care in May 2014.

The father sought child support from the mother retroactive to May 2014, while the mother argued for a later start date due to periods where the child returned to her care.

The court found the child did not spend the required 40 percent of time with the mother to trigger shared custody provisions, ordering the mother to pay child support from May 1, 2014.

The court maintained the 50/50 sharing of extraordinary expenses and ordered the father to pay a reduced lump sum of $3,500 for past expenses claimed by the mother.

This trial decision addresses outstanding issues in a divorce proceeding, including the respondent's annual income for support, spousal support entitlement and quantum, retroactivity of support, and special child expenses.

The court imputed income to the respondent due to inadequate disclosure and unreasonable business expense deductions, averaging her income over four years.

The applicant was awarded indefinite spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory grounds, recognizing his economic disadvantage and contributions to the respondent's career.

Child and spousal support were made retroactive, with arrears offset against the equalization payment.

Special expenses for the child were to be shared proportionately.

Corey Burroughs, accused of armed robbery, sought a stay of proceedings or, alternatively, the exclusion of evidence, alleging multiple Charter violations and abuse of process by police.

The court found that the police had reasonable grounds for arrest and did not violate the accused's right to counsel or improperly seize his vehicle.

However, the court determined that the police deliberately violated the accused's right to be brought before a justice of the peace without undue delay, as required by section 503 of the Criminal Code, constituting an abuse of process.

Applying the R. v. Babos test, the court found the police conduct shocking to societal fairness and decency, thus impacting the integrity of the justice system.

Despite this, considering the serious nature of the charges (armed robbery, kidnapping, use of firearms), the societal interest in a trial on the merits, and improvements in the judicial system since the incident, the court concluded that a stay of proceedings was not warranted.

The motion was dismissed.

A custody dispute between separated parents concerning their young child following an interim order that placed the child primarily with the father pending trial.

The mother sought restoration of the previous arrangement under which the child primarily resided with her, relying in part on a social worker’s recommendation.

The court rejected the recommendation after finding it based on an inaccurate understanding of the parties’ historical caregiving roles and for failing to address the impact of reversing the existing arrangement.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court emphasized the child’s stability, successful adjustment in the father’s community, and concerns about the mother’s earlier relocation conduct.

The court concluded that maintaining the existing residence with the father while preserving generous access to the mother best served the child’s interests.

Child protection agency sought summary judgment declaring three children in need of protection and requesting permanent Crown wardship for twin infants.

The evidence included medical findings of multiple fractures consistent with physical abuse inflicted while the children were in the care of the mother and her partner, along with evidence of parental instability and limited parenting capacity.

The court concluded there was no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the twins’ protection status and their best interests, and found that adoption planning through Crown wardship was appropriate.

However, the court determined that a trial was required to decide the appropriate long‑term placement for the older child.

The biological father of the twins was permitted to participate and propose a care plan.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a prior order seeking to terminate child support and special expenses for two adult children attending post-secondary education.

The court considered the definition of “child of the marriage” under the Divorce Act and the application of sections 3 and 7 of the Child Support Guidelines.

Applying the factors from Rosenberg v. Rosenberg and related authorities, the court found both children remained financially dependent while enrolled full-time in post-secondary programs and therefore continued to qualify as children of the marriage.

The court rejected the request to reduce basic child support to zero and held the Guidelines table amount remained appropriate.

The father was also ordered to contribute one-third of the children’s post-secondary education expenses beginning with the 2015–2016 academic year, conditional on proper disclosure of educational details.

A family law motion addressed spousal support sought by the applicant and a cross‑motion by the respondent seeking child support and other relief, including claims for retroactive child support and special expenses.

The court had previously issued an endorsement awarding the applicant $1,000 per month in spousal support and leaving other financial issues to the trial judge.

After the respondent filed a supplementary affidavit concerning past special expenses before the formal order was issued, the court confirmed it was not functus and reviewed the new material.

The additional affidavit did not change the court’s conclusions and the remaining financial issues were left for determination at trial.

The court approved the draft order with a minor wording variation.

The applicant brought a motion seeking temporary spousal support following the breakdown of a long-term marriage.

The respondent brought a competing motion seeking temporary child support and other relief relating to the parties’ adult child attending university.

The court found that the evidentiary record was insufficient to determine issues of retroactive support or special and extraordinary expenses due to changing circumstances relating to the child.

Considering the length of the marriage and the applicant’s disability income compared to the respondent’s significantly higher employment income, the court ordered interim spousal support of $1,000 per month effective September 1, 2015.

All issues of retroactivity and set-off were reserved to the trial judge.

The applicant mother sought a divorce, primary custody, and child support for the parties' three children.

The respondent father sought joint custody with equal parenting time.

The court found that the children were thriving in their current arrangement, where they spent 9 days with the mother and 6 days with the father in a 15-day cycle.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother, maintaining the 9/6 schedule.

Due to the father having the children 40% of the time and his substantially lower income, the court ordered no child support payable by either party.

Both parents were ordered to complete a parenting course.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a child support order following his job loss.

The central issue was whether the respondent mother exercised access to the child for at least 40 percent of the time over the course of a year, which would trigger the shared custody provisions under section 9 of the Child Support Guidelines.

The court calculated the parenting time, including time the child spent with the maternal grandparents, and concluded the mother had the child for 167 days, exceeding the 40% threshold.

Considering the parties' incomes and the mother's access costs, the court ordered the mother to pay $160 per month in child support.

A municipality brought an application seeking a finding of contempt against a property owner for failing to comply with court orders requiring compliance with building permit requirements and cessation of construction.

The court held that two earlier orders could not ground a contempt finding, including a prior contempt order imposing a fine.

However, the respondent was found to have willfully breached a subsequent order requiring him to obtain building permits, cease construction, and demolish unlawfully erected structures.

The court rejected the respondent’s argument that the municipality acted unreasonably in refusing permits and concluded that the respondent deliberately disregarded municipal building code requirements and court orders.

A finding of contempt was entered beyond a reasonable doubt, a committal warrant for 30 days’ imprisonment was issued, the municipality was authorized to demolish the structures, and costs were awarded.