M. O'Bonsawin

The moving party father brought an urgent motion for parenting time with the children over the Christmas holidays and for an order that the responding party mother share equally in the travel costs.

The parties had previously agreed to the Christmas access, but disagreed on the apportionment of flight costs from Ottawa to Winnipeg.

The court reviewed the existing Final Order, which stipulated that the parties share transportation costs equally if the mother opted not to meet halfway.

The court ordered the parties to share the $4,054.62 flight costs equally and set out the logistical terms for the children's travel.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment on 34 promissory notes totaling $998,181.23 and sought to dismiss the defendants' counterclaim.

The parties filed voluminous records totaling over 2,000 pages.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the sheer volume of evidence made it impossible to determine if there was a genuine issue for trial within the scheduled two-and-a-half-hour motion, and concluded the matter was not suitable for summary judgment.

The applicant mother and respondent father proceeded to trial to resolve issues of child support, retroactive child support, and parenting time for their 10-year-old son.

The mother sought retroactive child support and an increase in ongoing support based on the father's increased income, while the father sought increased parenting time, including overnights, and claimed undue hardship regarding support.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding both income and parenting.

The court ordered the father to pay ongoing child support based on his 2020 income of $112,045, finding no undue hardship, and ordered retroactive child support of $16,177 from August 2019.

The court also granted the father's request for increased parenting time, including alternating weekends with overnights and shared holidays, finding it in the child's best interests.

The accused was found guilty of two counts of mischief for damaging the complainant's property during their relationship.

The court considered the aggravating factor of intimate partner violence, the significant impact on the complainant, and the accused's lack of insight into his alcohol addiction.

The court sentenced the accused to 30 days of imprisonment, followed by 12 months of probation with conditions to attend anger management and alcohol counselling, along with a DNA order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a no-contact order.

The accused was charged with 15 counts of violent offences, including assault, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and uttering threats, against his former intimate partner.

The trial focused on the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the accused, who provided contradictory accounts.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence, finding it inconsistent and contradicted by text messages and photographic evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence, finding that the accused exerted financial control and committed numerous acts of violence, including grinding the complainant's legs into broken glass.

The accused was found guilty on all remaining counts.

The accused, charged with numerous serious offences including conspiracy to commit murder and firearms offences, applied for interim release.

The accused proposed a release plan involving two sureties and GPS monitoring.

The court found the proposed plan insufficient, noting that the accused had previously breached bail conditions while under the supervision of one of the proposed sureties.

The court ordered the accused's detention on secondary grounds (risk of interfering with the administration of justice) and tertiary grounds (maintaining confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offences and the strength of the Crown's case regarding threats).

The Court-Appointed Receiver brought a motion seeking approval of its activities, approval of the sale of certain farm properties, a vesting order, and a sealing order for confidential appendices.

The respondents opposed the sale, arguing the properties were sold below market value and could be severed for a higher price.

Applying the Soundair principles, the court found the Receiver acted appropriately, obtained a purchase price 128% above the appraised value, and did not act improvidently.

The court approved the sale, the Receiver's activities, and granted the sealing order to protect the market integrity of the properties.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the child at birth and sought a finding that the child was in need of protection.

After the Society closed its case at the adjudicative stage of the trial, the father brought a motion for a non-suit, arguing the Society failed to establish a prima facie case.

The court dismissed the non-suit motion, finding that the father's impulsivity, history of domestic violence, inconsistent access visits, and inability to control his emotions posed a real risk of physical and emotional harm to the child.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection and directed the matter to proceed to the dispositional stage.

The offender was found guilty of historical indecent assault, sexual assault, and buggery against his foster brother, who was a child at the time.

The court found the offender was in a position of trust and abused the victim over a lengthy period.

The court considered the severe impact on the victim, the offender's lack of a criminal record, and his health issues.

The offender was sentenced to a total of 7 years' imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration, weapons prohibition, and s. 161 prohibition orders.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault against two complainants he met through social media.

The core issue at trial was credibility, as the accused claimed the sexual encounters were consensual or initiated by the complainants, while the complainants testified they explicitly refused consent.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility and admitted similar fact evidence showing the accused used the same deceptive tactics and phrases with both women.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as incredible and found the complainants' testimonies credible and reliable, resulting in convictions on all counts.

The accused was found guilty of multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences after police located a sawed-off shotgun, ammunition, cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana in his vehicle.

The Crown sought a five-year sentence, while the defence sought one year.

The court considered the accused's youthful age, limited unrelated record, and strict bail conditions as mitigating factors, balanced against the aggravating factors of commercial drug trafficking and firearms possession.

The accused was sentenced to two years less a day imprisonment, minus credits for pre-sentence custody and strict bail conditions, followed by two years of probation.

The offender was found guilty of assault, sexual assault, mischief, and two counts of failing to comply with a probation order.

The offences involved choking the complainant and anally penetrating her without consent while she was at his apartment.

The offender was on probation at the time and had a significant prior criminal record involving violence.

The court weighed the aggravating factors, including the inherent violence of the sexual assault and the offender's limited insight, against mitigating factors such as family support.

The court sentenced the offender to a total of four years' imprisonment, less credit for pre-sentence custody, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order and a 20-year SOIRA registration.

In a family law proceeding, the respondent sought to strike the applicant's pleadings for his repeated failure to comply with court orders regarding financial disclosure and the payment of costs.

The court reviewed the applicant's history of non-compliance, noting multiple warnings and breaches of previous orders.

Applying the three-pronged test for striking pleadings, the court found that the applicant's wilful disregard of his fundamental disclosure obligations constituted a triggering event.

Concluding that no other remedy would suffice, the court struck the applicant's pleadings pursuant to Rule 1(8)(c) of the Family Law Rules and ordered the matter to proceed to an uncontested trial.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' application, the parties provided written submissions on costs.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the applicants came to court with unclean hands and adopted a retaliatory approach.

The court agreed, finding the applicants' conduct warranted elevated costs, and awarded the respondents $20,311.48 on a substantial indemnity scale.

The defendants brought a motion to strike paragraph 64 of the plaintiff's Amended Amended Statement of Claim without leave to amend.

The plaintiff had previously been granted leave to amend certain subparagraphs.

The court found that the plaintiff could not add the Chief of Police to the narrative as it was outside the scope of the previous order.

However, the court held that the plaintiff had provided sufficient material facts to support the novel claim that the Police Services Board failed to have a system in place to recognize officers' propensity for Charter breaches.

The motion to strike paragraph 64 in its entirety was dismissed, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The defendant police services board brought a motion to strike paragraph 28 of the plaintiff's amended statement of claim without leave to amend.

The court found that the plaintiff's amendments, which alleged the board failed to have a system to track Charter violations and excessive force by officers, fell under the board's statutory responsibilities and provided sufficient material facts.

The motion to strike the paragraph in its entirety was dismissed, though the word 'training' was struck as it violated a previous order.

The plaintiff brought a motion to find the defendants, Marcel and Jean-Georges Bisson, in civil contempt for deliberately refusing to sign Full and Final Releases as ordered by a previous judgment.

Applying the three-part test from Carey v. Laiken, the court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the order was clear, the defendants had actual knowledge of it, and they intentionally failed to comply.

The defendants were found in contempt, fined $20,000, and the releases were deemed signed by court order.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff on a full indemnity basis.

Following a successful motion by the plaintiff to amend its Statement of Claim to correct a misnomer, the parties made written submissions on costs.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, arguing the defendants unreasonably opposed the motion.

The defendants argued they should receive costs or costs should be in the cause due to the plaintiff's delay.

The court found the plaintiff's requested costs reasonable, noting the defendants should have consented to the misnomer correction, and awarded the plaintiff $2,551.31 in partial indemnity costs.

The defendant Ottawa Police Services Board brought a motion to strike paragraph 28 of the plaintiff's Statement of Claim.

The court found that paragraphs 28(a) and (b) lacked sufficient material facts to support the allegations regarding the Board's knowledge of the officers' propensity for excessive force, and struck them with leave to amend.

Paragraphs 28(c), (d), and (e), which related to training and supervision, were struck without leave to amend based on established precedent.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs of $3,360.

Following a successful motion for summary judgment, the moving party sought costs on a full indemnity basis.

The responding parties had attempted to resile from Minutes of Settlement and made unproven allegations of fraud and breach of trust against the moving party.

The court found that the responding parties' conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings and that their unproven allegations of dishonesty warranted an exception to the usual costs rules.

The court awarded full indemnity costs to the moving party, excluding the costs of preparing the costs submissions.