M.Z. Charbonneau

The applicant mother and respondent father separated after an eight-year relationship.

The mother sought primary parenting time, final decision-making responsibility, child support based on an imputed income for the father, and the return of her engagement ring.

The court ordered a shared parenting schedule as recommended by the Office of the Children's Lawyer clinician, but granted the mother final decision-making authority regarding health and education due to the father's history of anger and lack of organization.

The court imputed an annual income of $85,000 to the father, finding he intentionally underemployed himself and earned undeclared cash income.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive and ongoing child support, 60% of extraordinary expenses, and to return the engagement ring to the mother.

The applicant brought an application for equalization of property and spousal support.

The respondent argued that a cohabitation agreement signed prior to their marriage barred her claims.

The court held a bifurcated trial to determine the validity, enforceability, and content of the agreement.

The court found that there was adequate financial disclosure and no duress when the agreement was signed.

However, the court accepted the applicant's evidence that the respondent had torn up the agreement shortly after they moved into their new home, intending to terminate it.

Consequently, the court ruled that the agreement was no longer in effect and did not bind the parties at the date of separation.

The parties separated after a short cohabitation marked by domestic violence and substance abuse.

The father sought sole custody of their two children, one of whom has autism, while the mother sought joint custody or shared parenting.

Relying on an Office of the Children's Lawyer report, the court awarded sole custody to the father due to the mother's ongoing substance abuse, mental health issues, and lack of parenting skills.

The father was ordered to pay retroactive child support and ongoing spousal support, while the mother was ordered to pay ongoing child support based on an imputed income of $20,000.

The parties separated and engaged in a high-conflict dispute over the custody and support of their three-year-old child.

The father sought joint custody, while the mother sought sole custody based on the father's controlling behaviour and their inability to communicate.

The court awarded joint custody, noting that the parties had successfully implemented an equal shared parenting schedule and that communication had improved.

To address potential deadlocks, the court granted the mother final decision-making authority over health issues and the father final decision-making authority over education, subject to a duty to consult.

The court also imputed an annual income of $80,000 to the father, finding he had deliberately under-declared his income, and ordered retroactive child support based on the varying parenting schedules since separation.

The plaintiff brought a motion to certify a class action against the defendants, who operated an endoscopy clinic where an infection control lapse occurred.

The proposed class included patients who underwent procedures between 2002 and 2011.

Despite extensive public notification by public health authorities, the plaintiff could only identify one other potential class member, whose medical issues lacked expert evidence linking them to the clinic.

The court dismissed the certification motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish some basis in fact for the existence of an identifiable class of two or more persons.

The appellant appealed his conviction for assault causing bodily harm following a physical altercation with a co-worker.

The appellant admitted to kicking the complainant in the face but claimed self-defence.

The trial judge rejected the appellant's evidence and accepted the testimony of an eyewitness, concluding the kick was not in self-defence.

On appeal, the appellant argued the trial judge erred in assessing witness credibility and resolving factual issues.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility findings and dismissed the appeal.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's personal injury claim arising from an ATV accident, arguing it was statute-barred under the two-year limitation period.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discoverable until she received medical reports confirming her injuries met the threshold for permanent serious impairment.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding that a reasonable person in her circumstances would not have known the injuries were permanent until the medical reports were available, which occurred well within the limitation period.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused, charged with first-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed bail on the secondary and tertiary grounds under s. 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused's proposed electronic monitoring plan sufficiently addressed the secondary ground by minimizing the risk to public safety.

However, the court denied bail on the tertiary ground, concluding that detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice due to the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offence, and the accused's extensive criminal record.

Following a family law trial where the applicant was substantially successful on the issue of spousal support, the court determined the issue of costs.

The court noted that the respondent's failure to fully disclose her financial situation in a timely manner unnecessarily increased the length and complexity of the litigation.

The applicant was awarded $30,000 in costs on a partial indemnity basis, to be deducted from the amount he owed for the equalization of net family property.

The applicant father initiated a motion to change a final order regarding custody and access.

The respondent mother brought a counter-motion seeking child support arrears, ongoing support, and other relief.

At the hearing of the mother's motion, the court noted that the father conceded to retroactive child support adjustments based on his actual income.

The court ordered a temporary without prejudice order for ongoing child support of $782 per month and $300 per month towards arrears, and directed the parties to schedule a settlement conference to address the remaining issues.

The applicant, acting as litigation guardian for the deceased's two children, brought an application to remove the respondent as the estate trustee.

The respondent, who was the deceased's former common-law partner, had continued to occupy the deceased's home, used estate assets, and improperly claimed pension survivor benefits despite having separated from the deceased prior to her death.

The court found that the totality of the respondent's actions, including his hostility toward the beneficiaries and potential conflicts of interest regarding estate debts, raised real concerns about his ability to carry out his fiduciary duties.

The application was granted, the respondent was removed, and the alternate trustees named in the will were appointed.

The accused brought a motion to quash a search warrant authorizing the search of his vehicle following an armed robbery investigation, arguing the supporting information to obtain the warrant contained misleading and inaccurate statements regarding the presence of a similar vehicle at the crime scene.

The court reviewed the information to obtain under the principles governing warrant review and found that certain statements regarding a red van and a backpack were misleading and should be excised.

However, even after removing those statements, sufficient remaining facts supported reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused was one of the robbers and that evidence of the offence could be located in his vehicle.

The issuing justice could therefore reasonably conclude the statutory preconditions for the warrant were met.

The court held the search was lawful and declined to exclude the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendants brought a motion to strike a news release of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario Committee decisions that the plaintiffs sought to introduce at a certification motion.

The document was inadmissible under the Regulated Health Professionals Act.

The plaintiffs refused to withdraw the document until the eve of the hearing.

The court found the plaintiffs' conduct unreasonable and awarded the defendants $2,500 in partial indemnity costs for the motion.

Motion by a respondent to vary prior family law orders respecting parenting time, child support, and spousal support.

The court rejected both parties’ proposed parenting schedules due to impracticality arising from the father’s atypical work schedule and instead crafted a schedule tied to the father’s extended periods off work.

Child support was ordered to be calculated using the offset method due to variable parenting time.

The court found a material change in circumstances arising from changes in the parties’ incomes and terminated spousal support effective December 1, 2012.

The father was also ordered to reimburse half of specified daycare expenses and maintain a previously agreed equalization payment.

In a criminal prosecution for sexual offences against a very young complainant, the Crown sought admission of several out-of-court statements and drawings made by the child under the principled hearsay exception.

Following a voir dire, the court considered whether the statements met the requirements of necessity and threshold reliability.

The court found that statements made by the child to the mother and later to the grandmother were admissible because the child’s young age and reluctance to testify made them necessary to obtain a meaningful account, and the circumstances indicated sufficient reliability.

Other statements, including a police video interview, additional repetitions, and drawings allegedly created by the child, were excluded due to reliability concerns or limited probative value.

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 25 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to strike multiple paragraphs of the plaintiff’s statement of claim in an oppression action involving a minority shareholder.

The defendants argued the impugned paragraphs lacked full particulars, improperly pleaded evidence or opinion, and constituted an abuse of process by referencing allegedly frivolous legal proceedings.

The court held that most of the allegations sufficiently pleaded material facts and provided necessary narrative context.

However, several paragraphs were struck where they improperly pleaded evidence or opinion.

The court granted partial relief by striking limited portions of the pleading with leave to amend and dismissed the remainder of the motion.