Norman F. Williams

The accused, Adriel Cyrus, was convicted of two sexual assaults.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application seeking an indeterminate sentence.

The court found that Cyrus met all three statutory pathways for dangerous offender designation under the Criminal Code, based on his extensive criminal history, escalating violence, intractable psychiatric disorders (antisocial personality disorder, schizophrenia, cannabis use disorder), and poor prognosis for treatment.

The court concluded that an indeterminate sentence was the only adequate measure to protect the public, rejecting the defence's argument for a fixed sentence with a long-term supervision order.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for Crown wardship with no access regarding a 19-month-old child.

The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother's substance abuse and the parents' history of child protection involvement.

The father argued that the child's Métis heritage was not properly considered by the society.

The court found that the society made reasonable efforts to involve the Métis community, which declined to participate and supported adoption.

The court determined the child was in need of protection due to the mother's chronic drug addiction and the parents' inability to maintain a safe home.

The court ordered Crown wardship with no access, directing the society to ensure future placements educate the child on his Aboriginal heritage.

The applicant children's aid society apprehended a child at birth and sought Crown wardship.

The respondent father, who identified as Métis, brought a constitutional challenge arguing that the definitions of 'Indian', 'Native person', and 'Native child' in section 3(1) of the Child and Family Services Act violated section 15(1) of the Charter by excluding Métis children.

The court found that the definitions created a distinction based on analogous grounds that perpetuated disadvantage for Métis children and their families.

The court declared the definitions invalid but suspended the declaration for 10 months to allow the legislature to amend the Act.

The court also granted an individual remedy under section 24(1) of the Charter, ordering that the child be treated as an Indian or Native child for the purposes of the proceedings.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the accused following his conviction for assault causing bodily harm and three counts of breaches of a section 810.2 recognizance.

The court heard psychiatric evidence from both the Crown's expert (Dr. Mark Pearce) and the defence expert (Dr. Jeffrey McMaster).

Both experts agreed the accused met the statutory criteria for dangerous offender designation, but disagreed on the appropriate sentencing option.

The court declared the accused a dangerous offender but imposed a determinate sentence of ten years custody with a ten-year long-term supervision order rather than an indeterminate sentence, based on evidence of significant behavioral improvement during pre-sentence custody and the reasonable possibility of eventual control of risk in the community.

A father brought a motion to change seeking reduction of child support and termination of spousal support based on a significant decline in his self-employment income after leaving traditional employment.

The mother opposed and sought parenting changes including sole custody and reduced parenting time.

Parenting issues were adjourned pending potential involvement of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer due to the absence of independent evidence regarding the child’s wishes and circumstances.

The court determined that the father had voluntarily chosen self-employment despite known support obligations and had failed to seek comparable employment when the business proved unsuccessful.

Applying the principles in s.19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines and the test from Drygala v. Pauli, the court found the father intentionally under-employed and imputed income at the level he previously earned in traditional employment.

The father applied for sole custody of his four-year-old daughter, who had been living with her maternal grandmother for almost four years.

The mother, who had significant mental health and substance abuse issues, supported the grandmother's claim for custody.

The court found that the grandmother's home environment was unstable and that she lacked insight into the mother's and her own deficiencies, including failing to protect the child from the mother's violent partner and failing to address the child's chronic head lice.

The court determined that the father offered a stable, loving, and comprehensive plan for the child's care.

Sole custody was granted to the father, with specified access to the mother and maternal grandparents.