M. J. Quigley

The appellant appealed his convictions for impaired driving, operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80, and breach of probation.

At trial, the sole issue was the identity of the driver, with the defence arguing that a passenger was driving.

The trial judge rejected the defence evidence and convicted the appellant.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly apply the third prong of the W.(D.) framework regarding credibility and reliability.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's detailed credibility analysis and factual findings.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The respondent parents opposed the motion, with the mother seeking the return of the children under a supervision order and the father alleging the Society failed to properly explore a kin placement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' failure to protect the children from neglect and domestic violence, the mother's failure to exercise reasonable access, and the father's lack of involvement.

The court granted the motion, finding the children in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship without access.

The defendant children's aid society and its employees brought a Rule 21 motion to strike the plaintiff father's claim for negligent investigation and bad faith.

The plaintiff alleged the defendants conducted a biased and negligent investigation into allegations of sexual abuse, leading to unwarranted child protection proceedings.

The court reviewed conflicting jurisprudence on whether a children's aid society owes a duty of care to a parent under investigation.

Applying the Anns test, the court found it was not plain and obvious that no duty of care existed or that the defendants' alleged conduct fell within the statutory immunity for good faith actions.

The motion to strike was dismissed, allowing the claim to proceed to trial.

Following a family law trial, the court released an addendum to earlier reasons after recognizing that certain issues had not been addressed, including net family property equalization, section 7 expenses, and clarification of child support.

The court held that it retained jurisdiction to resolve matters not previously determined despite arguments that it was functus officio.

After reviewing the parties’ financial statements and submissions, the court accepted the respondent’s equalization calculation and ordered payment to the applicant in monthly instalments.

The court also clarified the applicant’s ongoing obligations for section 7 expenses and established procedures for future proportional sharing based on annual income disclosure.

An order for ongoing child support was specified based on the applicant’s income and the applicable Federal Child Support Tables.