N. Somji

The respondent mother sought a final parenting order for the parties' two-and-a-half-year-old child after the applicant father was noted in default.

The father failed to attend the uncontested trial.

The court reviewed the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, noting the mother's role as primary caregiver, the child's medical needs, and allegations of family violence by the father.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, with parenting time for the father at the mother's discretion.

Child support issues were severed to be heard at a later trial.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, brought a mid-trial Charter application alleging his s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached because he was not given the opportunity to speak to his counsel of choice.

After his arrest, the accused sought to speak with a specific lawyer, but when that lawyer was unavailable, he agreed to speak with another lawyer at the same firm.

The accused expressed no dissatisfaction with the consultation.

The court dismissed the application, finding the accused was not reasonably diligent in asserting his right to counsel of choice and the police had no additional informational duty to advise him of his right to wait for his preferred counsel.

The respondent father sought costs of $25,743.20 on a full recovery basis after successfully defending a motion for relocation and an urgency application brought by the applicant mother.

The mother argued for no or nominal costs, citing her inability to pay and alleging unreasonable conduct by the father.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules, including the father's reasonable offers to settle and the conduct of both parties.

The court found no unreasonable conduct by the father and determined the mother had some ability to pay.

The court awarded the father costs fixed at $18,000.

The appellant appealed his conviction for impaired care and control of a motor vehicle.

He argued the trial judge erred by applying the Hatfield test instead of the Boudreault framework to assess the presumption of care and control under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The summary conviction appeal judge dismissed the appeal, holding that Boudreault did not overrule Hatfield, and the relevant time to assess the driver's intention remains when occupancy of the vehicle began.

The trial judge's factual findings regarding the appellant not exiting the vehicle were also upheld as reasonable.