Monica A. K. Lipson

This decision provides supplementary reasons for dismissing a s. 11(b) motion for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in a sexual assault case.

The court analyzed three periods of delay, attributing some to defence and characterizing significant portions as institutional delay due to persistent physical and technological failures at the Burlington courthouse (HVAC failure, malfunctioning CCTV equipment).

Despite these systemic issues, the total delay of 16 months, 2 weeks, fell below the 18-month Jordan presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice, and the defence's decision not to utilize an earlier trial date contributed to the overall timeline.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts: possession of child pornography and bestiality.

The Crown sought a four-month custodial sentence, while the Defence argued for a conditional sentence, citing the defendant's rehabilitative efforts and low risk of re-offending.

The court, guided by the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in R. v. Friesen, emphasized the objectives of denunciation and deterrence for child sexual exploitation offences.

Despite the defendant's personal circumstances and progress in rehabilitation, the court found that a custodial sentence was necessary due to the gravity of the offences and their significant impact on the victims.

The defendant was sentenced to a total of three months' custody, followed by two years of probation, a 10-year prohibition order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code, and a 20-year SOIRA order.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and failing to remain at the scene of an accident.

The incident occurred on January 10, 2011, in a parking lot in Oakville when the accused struck the complainant with her vehicle.

The Crown presented evidence from four independent eyewitnesses, the complainant, and a police officer.

The accused testified that the complainant jumped on the hood of her vehicle.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as incredible and inconsistent with the testimony of all Crown witnesses.

The court found that the accused deliberately drove onto a median where the complainant was standing, struck her, and then fled the scene without providing her name, address, or assistance.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraudulent activity carried out between July 1, 2012 and January 7, 2015, resulting in over $2.4 million in funds received.

The majority of monies were obtained through a large and sophisticated fraud involving the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program affecting over 900 victims, with additional funds obtained through cheque cashing fraud.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years less credit for pre-sentence custody, with a restitution order of $1.5 million.

The court found numerous aggravating factors including the accused's prior criminal record for fraud, the long duration of the fraud, the devastating impact on victims, and the damage to the integrity of the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

The court rejected gambling addiction as a mitigating factor given the accused's minimal rehabilitation efforts.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from two separate incidents: prowling and voyeurism on March 17, 2011, and breaking and entering with intent to commit an indictable offence on March 20, 2010.

The defence raised the issue of non-insane automatism due to sleepwalking, supported by expert psychiatric evidence regarding the effects of the medication Zopiclone.

The court found the accused guilty of prowling on March 17, 2011, but not criminally responsible for the offences on March 20, 2010, due to mental disorder automatism.

The court applied the holistic approach established in R. v. Stone, considering the continuing danger to the public and the medical evidence regarding the accused's condition.

A summary judgment motion by the mother for sole custody of the child, a final restraining order, and supervised access for the father.

The father, who had been convicted of aggravated assault and unlawful confinement, did not file responding materials.

The court found that the mother met the legal onus of proving there was no genuine issue for trial.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, ordered supervised access for the father, and continued the restraining order based on the father's serious criminal convictions, his unfounded accusations against the mother, installation of spyware on the child's computer, and the material change in circumstances since the separation agreement.

A costs endorsement following a four-day family law trial on custody, access, and child support.

The respondent mother was successful at trial and sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The respondent had served a valid offer to settle prior to trial that was more favourable or as favourable as the trial outcome.

The court awarded costs in the amount of $3,599.98, finding that the respondent's counsel had submitted a conservative bill of costs based on legal aid rates, and that the applicant father had the financial capacity to pay despite limited resources and additional child support obligations.

A trial concerning parenting arrangements for a two-year-old child born to unmarried parents.

The father sought joint custody and equal parenting time with no child support.

The mother sought sole custody, specified access for the father, child support, and ongoing financial disclosure.

The court found that the mother was the parent best able to provide stability and consistency for the child.

The father demonstrated poor judgment and lack of insight into the child's needs, including missing medical appointments and failing to communicate with the mother about important parenting decisions.

The court granted sole custody to the mother with alternate weekend access to the father, imputed income to the father at $25,000 annually, and ordered child support of $200 per month.

The court also established detailed communication guidelines and transportation arrangements.