OCJ 2026

This costs endorsement followed competing motions to change a final parenting order concerning two children.

The court held that the mother was the successful party because the father's efforts to set aside or vary the order, terminate a restraining order, and obtain unsupervised parenting time were dismissed, while her request for a leave requirement before further proceedings was granted.

Applying the Family Law Rules costs factors, the court found the father's litigation conduct unreasonable, but reduced the amount sought because some prior-step work was not recoverable and the time and staffing claimed were excessive for motions of modest complexity.

Costs were fixed at $15,000 inclusive, payable forthwith.

On competing temporary family law motions, the court determined parenting, school placement, decision-making, and child support for a six-year-old in a shared parenting arrangement.

Applying the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act, the court held that the status quo should be preserved pending trial because the child was settled in a Toronto school and daycare, had improved with existing supports, and would face unnecessary disruption if moved to Ajax.

The court declined to order temporary joint decision-making responsibility because the parties' communication was poor, trust was lacking, and conflict remained significant.

Applying the s. 9 shared custody analysis, the court ordered temporary child support of $925 per month from the father, taking into account set-off, duplicated child-related expenses, and the parties' relative means.

Following a trial conviction for assault causing bodily harm, the court sentenced the accused for a prolonged and violent assault arising from a neighbour dispute.

The court treated the victim's vulnerability, the viciousness of the attack, the location at the victim's home, and the accused's status as a court officer as aggravating factors, while also recognizing remorse, collateral employment consequences, and strong prior good character.

A conditional discharge and suspended sentence were rejected as contrary to the public interest and insufficient to meet denunciation and deterrence.

The court nevertheless found that a custodial sentence could safely be served in the community and imposed a 9-month conditional sentence order followed by 12 months' probation, together with DNA and weapons prohibition orders.

The accused, charged with having excess blood alcohol within two hours of driving, conceded the Crown's case on the merits but sought exclusion of the breath samples on the basis of an alleged breach of s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The court held that the police failed to make reasonable efforts to contact counsel of choice and improperly assumed that a non-criminal lawyer could only provide a referral rather than legal advice, thereby undermining the accused's right to counsel of choice.

The court rejected allegations that police steered the accused to duty counsel or were obliged, absent a request, to provide internet or phonebook resources to locate another lawyer.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the breach serious but its impact attenuated, and held that the reliable and crucial breath evidence should not be excluded given the strong societal interest in adjudicating the impaired driving charge on the merits.

The application was dismissed and a finding of guilt entered.

In a child protection motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court considered whether customary care agreements for Indigenous children were valid despite the absence of parental consent where both parents had been properly served but remained wholly absent and unlocatable.

The court held that parental consent, while generally critical, is not an absolute precondition where exceptional circumstances exist, sustained efforts at engagement have failed, the agreements are comprehensive, culturally grounded, and preserve parental rights, and robust mechanisms for review and judicial oversight remain in place.

The court emphasized the statutory preference for customary care for Indigenous children and distinguished appellate authority where inadequate safeguards and insufficient First Nations involvement had rendered reliance on a customary arrangement impermissible.

The motion was granted, the parents were noted in default, the requirement for their signatures was dispensed with, and the protection application was withdrawn in favour of the customary care agreements.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, assault by gesture, and breach of probation arising from an incident in an intimate relationship.

The court found the complainant credible and reliable notwithstanding a possible motive to fabricate, and accepted her evidence that the accused intentionally touched her sexually after she repeatedly said no and physically resisted.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that a closed-fist gesture during a later argument was intended as a threat, given the contemporaneous denial overheard by another witness.

The accused was acquitted of assault, but convicted of sexual assault and failing to comply with probation by committing the sexual assault.

The accused was sentenced for criminal harassment and uttering threats arising from a parking lot encounter in which he threatened sexual violence and made Islamophobic comments to a Muslim woman.

The court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the offences were motivated by bias, prejudice, or hate based on religion and that the complainant's vulnerability in the circumstances engaged s. 718.04, making denunciation and deterrence primary sentencing objectives.

Although the accused's remorse, rehabilitative programming, prior good character, and possible collateral consequences were mitigating, the court held that a discharge or suspended sentence would be contrary to the public interest and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.

A 90-day conditional sentence concurrent on both counts was imposed, together with a five-year s. 110 order and a DNA order, and the Kienapple argument was rejected because the uttering threats count contained a distinct factual element.

The defendant was charged under the City of Toronto Municipal Code with failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent his dog from engaging in a dangerous act.

The defendant's large dog, while off-leash, attacked and killed a smaller leashed dog in a shopping plaza parking lot.

The defendant did not attempt to stop the attack and left the scene before police arrived.

The trial proceeded ex parte as the defendant failed to appear.

The court found the testimonies of the eyewitnesses and investigating officers credible, establishing the defendant's identity and the actus reus of the offence.

As the defendant did not present a due diligence defence, he was found guilty.

In an aged criminal prosecution, the court issued a case management ruling imposing deadlines for perfection and response materials on numerous Crown and defence pre-trial motions, including applications under s. 276, Part VIII, Charter ss. 7, 8, 10(b), 11(b), and third-party records requests.

The court held that the matter was far too dated to pause while an outstanding s. 11(b) ruling and a proposed recusal application remained unresolved.

Acting under the Criminal Code case management provisions, the court required the parties to proceed promptly, treated prior adjournment requests as moot, and barred further motions without leave.

The ruling stressed the constitutional obligation of all justice system participants to move criminal proceedings forward efficiently.

On a dangerous offender application arising from a guilty plea to assault with a weapon, the court found the predicate offence formed part of a persistent pattern of random, aggressive violence against strangers driven by untreated schizophrenia, substance use, homelessness, and antisocial traits.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent posed a high risk of future violent recidivism and satisfied the future-threat branch of s. 753(1)(a)(ii).

However, the Crown failed to prove intractability beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence showed known and mutable risk factors, demonstrated periods of stability under coercive treatment and structured support, and identified realistic, responsivity-informed federal treatment options.

The dangerous offender application was therefore dismissed, but the court designated the respondent a long-term offender under s. 753(5) and indicated that a penitentiary sentence followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order would be imposed.

The paternal grandmother applied for contact with her three grandchildren.

The mother brought a motion to change an existing contact order regarding the oldest child.

The court found a material change in circumstances regarding the oldest child due to the parents reuniting, the birth of a new sibling, and the unworkability of the existing order.

Applying the test for grandparent contact, the court granted the grandmother contact with the two older children for one weekend per month, finding it in their best interests despite the high conflict between the parties.

The claim for contact with the youngest child was dismissed due to the lack of a pre-existing relationship, the child's medical needs, and the high level of conflict.

Sentencing decision for a police sergeant convicted after trial of breach of trust and obstruction of justice arising from a planned warrantless entry into an apartment, unlawful search, arrests and detention of occupants, and later alteration of an occurrence report to fabricate a lawful basis for entry.

The court held that denunciation and general deterrence were the dominant principles because the offender was a senior police officer who knowingly abused public authority, conscripted subordinate officers, targeted vulnerable occupants, and pursued a deliberate cover-up.

Although the offender had strong rehabilitation prospects, family support, and mental health and alcohol-use challenges that post-dated the offences, those factors did not displace the need for a penitentiary term.

A global sentence of 3 years' imprisonment was imposed, with ancillary DNA and victim fine surcharge orders refused.

The accused was tried on a charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on civilian and police observations, a standard field sobriety test, a drug influence evaluation, and toxicology evidence showing cocaine, benzoylecgonine, and buprenorphine in the accused's blood.

The court accepted that any degree of drug impairment would suffice, but found the driving evidence minimal, the drug recognition conclusion inconsistent with the toxicology findings, and the defence explanation of exhaustion reasonably possible.

Taken as a whole, the evidence left a reasonable doubt whether the accused was impaired by drugs or simply fatigued.

In a child protection proceeding involving an Indigenous child, long-term foster parents moved to be added as parties to the disposition phase.

The court held that foster parents do not have party status as of right under s. 13 of An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families because “care provider” does not include foster parents whose role arises from a state-created placement.

Applying the discretionary framework under r. 7(5) of the Family Law Rules, together with the participation rights contemplated by s. 79(3) of the CYFSA, the court found that full party status was in the child’s best interests.

The foster parents’ lifelong caregiving role, ability to advance a plan of care, and unique evidence about the child’s needs justified their addition without undermining the Federal Act’s emphasis on cultural continuity, Indigenous jurisdiction, and family and community connection.

Sentencing following guilty pleas to two theft under $5,000 counts arising from coordinated LCBO thefts and one breach of probation count for attending an LCBO contrary to an existing order.

The court rejected a joint submission for 90 days' custody, holding that asserted deportation consequences were either not legally mitigating for an accused without status, not proven on the record, or incapable of justifying a disproportionate sentence.

Applying the Anthony-Cook framework, the court found the proposed sentence demonstrably unfit and unredeemed by any countervailing public-interest consideration.

A sentence of 12 months concurrent on the theft counts and 60 days concurrent on the probation breach was imposed.

The appellant appealed a conviction under s. 78.1 of the Highway Traffic Act for driving while holding and using a hand-held wireless communication device.

He did not challenge the trial justice's factual findings or legal interpretation, but argued for a novel public-interest defence based on his employment duties operating a transit fare device.

The appeal court held that the offence and statutory exemptions were correctly applied, that being stopped at a red light did not excuse the conduct, and that it was not the court's role to create an additional defence not enacted by the Legislature.

The conviction appeal was dismissed.

This was a costs endorsement following a three-day family trial concerning parenting and child support for two children.

The court held that the mother was more successful overall, particularly on child support and decision-making responsibility, although success was divided on several other issues.

The court analyzed the parties' offers to settle under the Family Law Rules and found that only the mother's offers attracted subrule 24 (12) consequences on the issue of decision-making responsibility, while the father's offers did not meet the technical requirements or were not as favourable as the result.

After considering proportionality, settlement efforts, unreasonable conduct, rates, the successful party's bill of costs, and the father's ability to pay, the court fixed costs at $16,950 payable by monthly instalments.

Following guilty pleas to thirteen counts of failing to comply with property standards and unsafe building orders relating to a rental apartment building, the court considered a joint submission on sentence.

Applying the Anthony-Cook public interest test in a regulatory sentencing context, the court accepted the proposed fines for eleven counts but rejected the proposed $75,000 fines for two counts involving dangerous balcony and parking garage conditions posing grave risk to life and permanent injury.

The court emphasized deterrence, denunciation, repeat offending, the corporation's broad economic activity, and the vulnerability of affected tenants.

Fines of $400,000 were substituted on the two unsafe-building counts, for a total fine of $950,000 plus victim fine surcharges and court administration fees.

Sentencing for a home shooting in which the offender attended a family residence after midnight, demanded to know the whereabouts of his girlfriend, and fired multiple handgun shots into the home, striking the victim in the hip while several family members, including children, were present.

The court held that denunciation, general deterrence, and public protection were paramount given the grave harm, the invasion of the family's home, the offender's prior firearms conviction, and the fact that he committed the offences while on bail and under weapons prohibition.

The court placed the case at the high end of the range for gun violence and imposed a global sentence of 11 years' imprisonment.

The offender received 423 days of pre-sentence custody credit under Summers and 30 days of Downes credit for conditions of confinement.

The accused pleaded guilty to extortion, multiple child-luring offences, distribution of child sexual abuse and exploitation material, and possession of a large collection of such material arising from prolonged online exploitation of multiple child victims.

The court held that denunciation, deterrence, and child-centred public protection predominated, given the extreme harm to vulnerable victims, the offender's high moral blameworthiness, and the scale and duration of the offending.

Although the accused's FASD diagnosis, guilty plea, lack of record, family support, and rehabilitative efforts were mitigating, the court found those factors had only limited impact on proportionality in the circumstances.

Applying consecutive sentencing subject to totality, and crediting pre-sentence custody under Summers, the court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of nine years together with ancillary orders.