OCJ 2017

The applicant mother sought spousal support from the respondent father in a short marriage that ended following the father's criminal assault on the mother.

The father conceded that some spousal support was owing but disputed the amount.

The father failed to file his evidence in chief as ordered and did not testify at trial.

The court awarded spousal support of $1,275 per month for an indefinite duration, reviewable after December 31, 2021.

The court rejected the father's argument that the mother should be working or that income should be imputed to her, finding her decision to pursue English language education and vocational training reasonable given her circumstances as sole caregiver of two children, one of whom suffered emotional trauma from witnessing the father's assault.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating with excess blood alcohol following an erratic driving report.

A Charter application was brought to exclude evidence obtained following an alleged violation of the right to counsel under section 10(b).

The court found that police delayed providing the right to counsel for 26 minutes after arrest, constituting a breach.

Under section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence as the breach was serious and the impact on the accused's Charter rights was significant.

However, the court found the accused guilty of the included offence of care or control while impaired, as the Crown established the accused was in the driver's seat with keys in possession and was heavily intoxicated, presenting a realistic risk of danger.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference of a 10-year-old child.

The Crown alleged that the accused touched the victim's breasts while tickling her in his bedroom and again at the top of the stairs, warned her not to tell anyone, and touched her buttocks.

The accused admitted to physical contact but denied sexual assault.

The court found that the Crown proved the physical and mental elements of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt based on the victim's credible testimony, the accused's admissions and contradictions, and the circumstances of the touching.

However, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused's subjective motivation was for a sexual purpose, acquitting on the sexual interference charge.

The accused was convicted of invitation to sexual touching under section 152 of the Criminal Code following a consensual romantic relationship with a 14-year-old complainant when the accused was 19 years old.

The age difference was five years and 35 days, placing the accused just outside the five-year close-in-age exception under section 150.1.

The sentencing court found that imposing the mandatory minimum 90-day custodial sentence would be grossly disproportionate to the circumstances, including the consensual and non-exploitative nature of the relationship, the complainant's lack of harm, the accused's excellent character and remorse, and the minimal difference from the statutory exception.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, 25 hours community service, DNA registration, and a 10-year SOIRA order.

The accused was convicted of failing to comply with a probation order, breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent to commit mischief, assault, and forcible seizure.

The Crown sought a declaration that the accused be designated a Long-Term Offender under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code and sought an eight-year long-term supervision order.

The defence challenged the application on Charter grounds, arguing unreasonable delay in sentencing proceedings.

The court dismissed the Charter application and declared the accused a Long-Term Offender, imposing a 60-day custodial sentence on top of pre-sentence detention credit, followed by a seven-year long-term supervision order.

The court found a substantial risk of reoffending, particularly in the context of intimate partner violence, and determined that community control was possible only through a long-term supervision order.

This is a motion to change a 2009 custody and access order in a highly contentious family law dispute involving a child with alleged food allergies.

The mother sought to impose indefinite supervised access on the father, claiming he failed to comply with medical directives regarding the child's purported life-threatening allergy to tartrazine (yellow food dye).

The father sought reinstatement of the original parenting plan or, alternatively, sole custody.

The court found a material change in circumstances based on the child's medical condition and the father's two lengthy absences from the child's life (totalling 16 months).

However, the court rejected the mother's request for indefinite supervised access, finding no credible evidence that the child faced physical risk in the father's unsupervised care.

The court reinstated substantially the original parenting plan with modifications, granting the father regular unsupervised access including overnight visits and holidays.

The court found the mother had undermined the father-child relationship through hyper-vigilance and over-protectiveness, while the father demonstrated poor judgment through his absences and oppositional conduct.

The child's best interests were served by maintaining the mother's custody while restoring meaningful access to the father.

The appellant appealed his conviction for disobeying a stop sign contrary to section 136 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal raised four grounds: improper denial of an adjournment application, failure to afford meaningful opportunity to review disclosure, conviction by section 54 rather than section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act, and insufficient evidence of identification.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding that the adjournment was properly denied, the brief hold-down for disclosure review was reasonable, section 54 was the appropriate procedure, and identification evidence was sufficient.

The applicant sought enforcement of a separation agreement and child support for two adult children, while the respondent sought to set aside the spousal support provisions and terminate his support obligations.

The court found that structured settlement annuity payments constitute income for child support purposes and should be grossed-up for tax purposes.

The court awarded table amount child support for both children, including an adult child enrolled in post-secondary education.

The court rejected the respondent's arguments to set aside the spousal support provisions and found no material change in circumstances warranting termination.

Retroactive child support arrears were rescinded based on the parties' oral agreement and the DBS factors.

The applicant sought costs following a successful motion on jurisdiction.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought a transfer to another region.

The court granted the applicant's motion and denied the respondent's motion.

Following the decision, the parties consented to a temporary order for access and child support.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis rather than full recovery, considering the absence of unreasonable conduct by the respondent, the lack of an offer to settle, and the respondent's limited financial means.

The defendant was charged with committing an indecent act in a public place and failing to comply with a probation order.

The Crown alleged the defendant exposed his penis and masturbated inside and outside a coffee shop, and that he breached his probation by failing to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The court found the defendant not guilty of the indecent act charge due to insufficient evidence of harm or substantial risk of harm as required under the harm-based test established in R. v. Labaye.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of failing to comply with the probation order, as his disruptive behaviour in the coffee shop constituted a clear breach of the peace.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public causing bodily harm contrary to s.249(3) of the Criminal Code, and failing to stop at the scene of an accident causing bodily harm contrary to s.252(1.2) of the Criminal Code.

The incident occurred in a parking lot where the accused reversed his vehicle and struck the complainant with the left front quarter panel.

The trial judge acquitted the accused on both charges, finding that the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew his vehicle had struck the complainant, and that the accused's driving did not constitute a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the circumstances.

A motion for summary judgment brought by a Children's Aid Society in a status review application involving two children (ages 8 and 4) who were previously found to be in need of protection due to neglect by their mother.

The mother opposed the motion.

The court granted the society's motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issues requiring trial.

The court ordered crown wardship of both children with placement in the care of the Children's Aid Society, to be placed with their maternal grandparents.

The court also ordered supervised maternal access while denying access to both fathers.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and failure or refusal to provide a breath sample.

The Crown's evidence established that the accused was found intoxicated in the driver's seat of his vehicle, which was stuck in a snowbank at a bar parking lot.

The accused's defence relied on alleged cognitive impairment from a beating he received the previous day in New Liskeard.

The court rejected the accused's credibility, finding his selective memory and lack of corroborating evidence problematic.

The court found the accused guilty on both charges, determining that he had failed to rebut the presumption of impaired care or control and that his refusal to provide a breath sample was deliberate and intentional.

The accused was charged with trafficking in cocaine under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence from an undercover operation (Project O'Tamper) targeting a steroid dealer.

The Crown alleged the accused supplied cocaine to the target through a brief, unobserved encounter in a parking lot.

The court found the evidence created strong suspicion but did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted due to insufficient evidence directly connecting him to possession or trafficking of cocaine, and the existence of reasonable alternative inferences consistent with innocence.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code following a roadside sobriety check.

The defendant claimed he used the word "prefer" rather than "refuse" and believed he had the right to decline the roadside test based on legal advice received in the United States.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that he unequivocally refused to comply with a lawful demand and that his conduct constituted a refusal regardless of the specific words used.

The court rejected the defendant's credibility and accepted the officer's evidence as reliable and truthful.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood and operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found no section 8 or 9 violation, as the officer reasonably believed the approved screening device was functioning properly.

However, the court found a section 10(b) violation when police refused to permit the accused to contact a third party to obtain a lawyer's name and contact information.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court admitted the breath samples, finding that exclusion would not be necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was found guilty on both charges.

The defendant was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded as a blended hearing addressing both the merits and a motion to exclude evidence based on alleged Charter violations.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath and blood samples on grounds of violations to sections 8, 10(a), and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court rejected all Charter claims except finding a minor breach regarding the timing of the approved screening device demand.

Despite this breach, the court declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and found the defendant guilty as charged.

The accused, a nurse, was charged with sexual assault against a complainant who was brought to a hospital emergency room in a highly intoxicated and unresponsive state.

The complainant alleged that the accused engaged in multiple instances of inappropriate touching, including fondling her breasts and placing her hand on his genitals while inserting an intravenous line.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her impaired cognitive state, internal inconsistencies, and demonstrated motive to tailor her testimony.

A credible eyewitness who observed the relevant portion of the alleged assault testified that he did not see any of the alleged inappropriate conduct.

The accused's evidence was consistent with the eyewitness account and video evidence.

The charge was dismissed.

The mother brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss the father's motion to change custody and access provisions of a 2013 order.

The father sought joint custody, expanded access including mid-week overnight visits and school pick-ups, and changes to child support.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting variation of the custody and access order.

The father's allegations regarding continued conflict, progressive hearing loss, need for American Sign Language instruction, cancelled visits, and other claimed changes were all found to be either not material or not supported by evidence.

The court granted the mother's summary judgment motion and dismissed the father's motion to change custody and access, while adjourning the child support variation claim.

The court also imposed a requirement that the father obtain leave before bringing any further motions to change custody or access.

The accused pleaded guilty to armed robbery of a pharmacy where he stole 110 bottles and packages of narcotics, including 75 fentanyl patches, using a knife as a weapon.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission of two years imprisonment plus presentence custody.

The court rejected the joint submission as contrary to the public interest and imposed a sentence of five years in the penitentiary.

The accused's application to withdraw his guilty plea was dismissed.

The court found no reasonable apprehension of bias and determined that withdrawal was not justified in the interests of justice.