Michelle Margaret Dwyer

The offender, an Indigenous man and survivor of the 'Indian Day School' system, was found guilty of four counts of sexual interference against an 11-to-13-year-old child.

The court weighed the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences against the offender's profound history of trauma, abuse, and systemic racism.

A sentence of 3 years in jail was imposed, along with ancillary orders, reflecting a significant reduction from the Crown's proposed range due to Gladue factors.

The applicant brought a contempt motion against the respondent for failing to comply with previous court orders regarding the filing of corporate tax returns and winding up a company.

The respondent, who was self-represented and challenged the court's jurisdiction, did not substantively respond to the allegations.

The court found the respondent in contempt beyond a reasonable doubt, noting her deliberate non-compliance and history of disregarding court orders.

The court declined to allow the respondent to purge her contempt due to extensive delays and ordered specific remedies, including dispensing with her consent for tax documents and corporate winding-up, and directing the distribution of funds held in trust to cover corporate tax liabilities, accounting fees, and outstanding costs owed to the applicant.

The appellant mother appealed aspects of a trial judge's final order concerning custody, principal residence, and parenting of their child.

She challenged the father's final decision-making power and the child's principal residence remaining with the father.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no reversible errors in the trial judge's factual findings, application of s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, or assessment of the child's best interests.

The court also rejected the appellant's allegation of judicial bias, reiterating the high threshold for establishing bias and the deference owed to trial judges in child custody matters.

This is a costs decision arising from two custody and access motions heard on August 11, 2020.

The father sought recovery of costs on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $3,957.59, arguing he was mostly successful.

The mother contended that success was divided and therefore no costs should be awarded.

The court found divided success on the issues: the father was successful on the primary issue of parenting time, while the mother was successful on the secondary issue of schooling.

However, the court found the mother's conduct regarding the schooling issue to be unreasonable, as she had agreed to keep the child in his original school but unilaterally removed him and restricted the father's access to information about the child.

The court awarded costs to the father in the amount of $3,000.00 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable within 60 days.

A motion to change custody and access arrangements in a high-conflict family law case involving two young children.

The mother sought sole custody and to vary the father's mid-week overnight access, while the father sought sole custody with the mother having alternate weekend access.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the last order and conducted a fresh inquiry into the children's best interests.

Despite the Office of the Children's Lawyer recommending that the father have sole custody, the court ordered that the children remain in the primary care of the mother with substantially expanded access to the father, including three weekends per month during the school year and equal time sharing during summer and holidays.

The court imposed a joint custody arrangement structured as parallel parenting to preserve the balance of power between the parties and prevent further marginalization of the father's role.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a final order for child support.

The respondent father claimed he was unemployed and had limited income, despite living an extravagant lifestyle funded by his wealthy father (the children's grandfather) through gifts, loans, and family trusts.

The court found the father's financial disclosure inadequate and drew an adverse inference.

Applying the Bak factors, the court imputed an annual income of $463,863 to the father based on his lifestyle, corporate add-backs, and the history of generous gifts.

The father was ordered to pay table child support and a proportionate share of section 7 expenses, including a fixed annual amount for extracurricular activities.

The appellant was convicted of sexual assault and common assault by a trial judge sitting without a jury.

He was sentenced to 42 months' imprisonment on the sexual assault conviction and one year concurrent on the common assault conviction.

On appeal, the appellant challenged his sexual assault conviction, arguing that the trial judge's findings of corroborative evidence were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction, finding that the trial judge properly identified corroborating evidence in the complainant's flight from the house naked in February and the neighbours' observations of her state and demeanor, which provided powerful confirmation of her account of sexual and physical assault.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment dismissing her action for a declaration that a right-of-way is in full force and effect, an injunction restraining the respondents from blocking the right-of-way, and damages for trespass.

The motion judge expressed opinions on issues not before him and failed to address critical issues including the admissibility of evidence and whether the respondents' fence blocked the appellant's access to the right-of-way.

The Court of Appeal set aside the summary judgment order.

The applicant mother sought leave to appeal an interim family law order requiring that the parties’ child reside within the attendance boundaries of her current school.

The interim order had been made in the context of a motion to change a prior consent order governing custody, parenting, and relocation.

The court applied the strict test for leave to appeal under Rule 62.02(4) and found no reason to doubt the correctness of the interim order, which preserved the existing parenting regime pending a full determination.

The proposed appeal raised issues specific to the parties and did not involve matters of general or public importance.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

The father brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking to reduce table support for his adult daughter who was attending university away from home for eight months of the year, and to fix his contribution to her section 7 expenses.

The mother opposed, arguing that full table support should continue as she maintained a home for the daughter's visits and study breaks, and sought an increase in support based on the father's higher income.

The court dismissed the father's request to reduce table support, finding the table approach was not inappropriate given the family's pre-separation lifestyle and the mother's ongoing household expenses.

The court increased the table support to reflect the father's current income and apportioned the section 7 expenses 67% to the father and 33% to the mother.

The appellant father appealed a trial decision regarding custody, child and spousal support, and equalization of net family property.

He argued the trial judge erred in designating the mother's home as the primary residence and ordering unequal access despite a joint custody order, and challenged the support and equalization orders.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's decisions on primary residence, access, imputed income, and equalization were fully supported by the record and sensible in a high-conflict case.

The parties separated in 2008 and initially agreed to joint custody with primary residence to the mother.

In 2010, the mother was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm related to her boyfriend's sexual assault of a minor.

The father sought sole custody and permission to move the children out of the jurisdiction.

The court found that the children were not at risk in the mother's care and that it was in their best interests to maintain primary residence with her in their familiar neighbourhood.

The court also ordered the father to pay child support, ongoing and retroactive spousal support, and an equalization payment.