Michelle DiCarlo

The Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of the child S.H. in kinship placement, with supervised access for the Respondent Mother.

The Mother opposed, seeking the child's return to her care, and challenged the admissibility of photographs taken by the Society, arguing a Charter breach.

The court found a serious Charter infringement regarding the photographs but, applying the R. v. Grant framework, determined that their exclusion would not place the child at risk of harm nor significantly impact the Society's case, as the narrative evidence was sufficient.

Ultimately, the court found the Mother unable to meet parenting responsibilities due to home conditions, mental health, and interaction issues, and ordered the child to remain in kinship care with Society supervision and specific terms for the Mother, while excluding the contested photographs from evidence.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed the appellant's appeal and subsequently issued a costs endorsement.

The appellant conceded that the respondent was entitled to costs.

The court determined that this was not an exceptional case warranting full indemnity costs and awarded the respondent $5,000 in costs, inclusive of disbursements and applicable taxes.

The appellant challenged a trial judge's decision that the parties' religious marriage ceremony in Tennessee was a valid marriage under s. 31 of Ontario's Marriage Act.

The appeal raised questions about whether s. 31 applies to marriages solemnized outside Ontario and to purely religious ceremonies where no steps were taken to obtain a licence or register the marriage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that s. 31 can validate marriages solemnized outside Ontario if the parties intended to create a formally binding legal marriage and did not deliberately fail to comply with legal requirements.

The court emphasized the public policy favoring marriage validity and found the parties' subjective belief and subsequent conduct supported the trial judge's finding of intent to comply.

The applicant brought a motion for the immediate sale of the matrimonial home, financial disclosure, and to strike portions of the respondent's affidavit.

The respondent brought a cross-motion for temporary exclusive possession of the home.

The court ordered the respondent to provide a Form 13.1 Financial Statement, noting that financial disclosure is a fundamental and ongoing obligation.

The court declined to strike the affidavit paragraphs, finding them not prejudicial.

Finally, the court ordered the sale of the matrimonial home, finding that the applicant was experiencing financial hardship and the respondent failed to establish that the sale would cause prejudice or that he was entitled to exclusive possession.

The applicant sought equalization of net family properties, which the respondent contested, asserting they were not married.

The court conducted a trial of an issue to determine the marital status of the parties.

A religious ceremony took place in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1998, after which the parties lived as husband and wife in Ontario for over 16 years, raising three children, despite not obtaining a marriage licence.

The court applied Ontario's Marriage Act, s. 31, finding that the marriage was solemnized in good faith, intended to be in compliance with the law, and followed by cohabitation as a married couple.

Consequently, the marriage was deemed valid under Ontario law, establishing the applicant as a "spouse" for equalization purposes under the Family Law Act.

The moving party father brought a motion for supervised access to his children outside of a supervised access centre, which was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

He proposed that his parents or brother supervise the access.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, citing safety concerns stemming from pending criminal charges against the father for severe domestic violence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that given the serious nature of the untested allegations, supervision by close family members was inappropriate as they might feel conflicted about reporting problems.

The court held that an independent supervisor was required and allowed the father to propose alternate supervisors.

The father brought a motion to modify a supervised access order, seeking supervision by family members after the designated supervised access centre closed due to the COVID-19 crisis.

The mother opposed, citing safety concerns related to the father's pending criminal charges for assault.

The court, acknowledging the urgency, declined to order family-supervised access without further information regarding the criminal charges.

Instead, the court ordered interim remote access via videoconferencing, facilitated by the mother's aunt, and adjourned the motion for counsel to gather more information about the criminal proceedings and specific safety concerns.

No costs were awarded.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion to vary a supervised access order, as the supervised access facility ceased operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father sought to have family members supervise access.

The court found that the request presumptively met the test for urgency, balancing the need to facilitate the father-child relationship with the safety concerns arising from a pending criminal trial and a non-association order against the father.

The court directed the applicant mother to file responding materials and scheduled an electronic hearing to address the merits.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

He pleaded guilty to simple possession of oxycontin and cocaine, and guilty to simple possession of fentanyl (rejecting the Crown's trafficking charge).

The Crown did not accept the lesser plea and proceeded to trial on the trafficking count.

The case was circumstantial, based primarily on the quantity of fentanyl found (24 patches with a street value of $9,600 to $12,000).

The accused testified he purchased the fentanyl for personal use, claiming he was a severe addict consuming 3-4 patches daily.

The court found the accused's evidence unlikely but not incapable of belief, and determined that possession for personal use remained a reasonably available inference from the circumstantial evidence.

The court acquitted on the trafficking charge but convicted on simple possession of fentanyl and the other drug counts.

The accused entered a guilty plea to trafficking fentanyl under s. 5(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought 30 months imprisonment, while the defence sought a time-served disposition.

The court imposed a time-served sentence (434 days pre-trial custody credited at 1.5:1 ratio = 651 days or 21.75 months), 12 months probation, and ancillary orders under s. 109 and DNA.

The court considered the extreme dangers of fentanyl, the accused's criminal history including prior drug trafficking convictions, but also the mitigating factors of guilty plea and the fact that only one patch was trafficked on one occasion.