Court of Justice

A reference hearing under Section 74 of the Firearms Act concerning the automatic nullification of a firearm registration certificate.

The applicant, a Lieutenant Commander in the Royal Canadian Navy, sought to challenge the nullification of his registration certificate for a Colt M4 semi-automatic rifle following its reclassification from restricted to prohibited under Order in Council SOR/2020-96 (May 1, 2020).

The court found that the registration certificate was nullified by legislative action, not by a decision of the Registrar of Firearms, and therefore the provincial court judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the reference under Section 74 of the Firearms Act.

The application was dismissed.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and voyeurism against an intoxicated sleeping victim.

The Crown sought 18 months incarceration plus 2 years probation.

The defence sought 9 months incarceration.

The sentencing judge imposed 12 months incarceration followed by 2 years probation, with the voyeurism count running concurrently due to COVID-19 pandemic considerations.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles given the offender's contemptuous disregard for the victim's lack of consent and the surreptitious recording of the assault.

A custody and access dispute between separated parents regarding their child, Jarvis Lebrun.

The mother sought joint custody with primary residence and liberal access for the father.

The father sought to maintain the status quo with the child residing primarily with him.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests.

After considering the child's clear and consistent preference to reside with the mother, the support system available to the mother, and the less-than-ideal circumstances of the father's care arrangement, the court awarded joint custody with primary residence to the mother and liberal access to the father.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking a finding of contempt against the applicant mother for denying him access to their four-year-old daughter in breach of temporary access orders dated October 11, 2018 and April 8, 2019.

The mother denied access based on the child's disclosures of alleged sexual abuse by the father, which triggered investigations by police and child protection services.

The court found the mother in contempt only for the period from October 7, 2020 onward, after investigations closed without substantiation and the father's bail conditions were varied to permit contact for family court purposes.

The court imposed a gradual resumption of access with financial penalties for missed visits rather than the requested change of custody.

The offender pleaded guilty to luring a 13-year-old girl via the internet for the purpose of facilitating sexual abuse under section 152 of the Criminal Code, and to distributing intimate images of the victim without consent under section 163.1.

The offender induced the victim to perform sexual acts and self-harm on video, captured screenshots, and subsequently distributed these images to peers in the victim's community as an act of revenge when the victim moved on to a local boy.

The victim suffered severe psychological harm, including anxiety, depression, suicide attempts, bullying, and academic decline.

The court imposed a sentence of five years less 68 days (4 years and 297 days) on the primary count, with three years concurrent on the secondary count, plus ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA, firearms prohibition, and section 161 conditions.

The Children's Aid Society of Peel brought a child protection application seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother's actions.

The mother had made repeated unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, subjected the child to numerous investigations and examinations, and created a high-conflict environment that caused the child serious anxiety and stress.

The court found that the child had suffered emotional harm as a result of the mother's pattern of making false allegations, repeatedly involving authorities, and pressuring the child to make negative statements about the father.

The court granted custody to the father with supervised access to the mother, finding that the mother's personality disorder and fixed belief system made her unable to recognize or change her harmful behavior.

Two young persons were charged with attempted robbery with a firearm arising from an incident on February 24, 2019, in which one defendant approached a vehicle with a sawed-off shotgun and demanded money while the other defendant was present at the scene.

The Crown's case relied on eyewitness testimony and CCTV footage.

The defendant N.H. testified that he was present but claimed he did not participate in the robbery and was unaware the firearm was in his possession.

The court found both defendants guilty of attempted robbery with a firearm, rejecting the defendant's assertion that he was merely a bystander and finding his presence at the passenger side of the vehicle and subsequent possession of the firearm demonstrated participation in a joint enterprise.

Supplementary reasons following a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning three children in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Algoma.

These reasons address the placement and access arrangements for the child M., a 16-year-old girl.

The court determined that placement with the maternal grandmother was appropriate, subject to a nine-month supervision order with tailored conditions.

The court rejected the Society's concerns regarding the grandmother's suitability as a caregiver and granted M. access to her mother as the access holder, with conditions permitting both supervised and unsupervised contact.

The decision emphasizes the statutory obligation to consider placement with relatives and the importance of respecting a mature minor's wishes and best interests.

The children's aid society brought a protection application seeking a finding that the child was in need of protection due to emotional harm caused by the mother.

Following the parents' separation, the mother repeatedly made unfounded allegations that the father was sexually and physically abusing the child, subjecting the child to numerous police and medical investigations.

The court found that the mother's fixed, false belief system and coaching caused the child severe anxiety and emotional harm.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection, granted sole custody to the father, and ordered that the mother's access be supervised.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a Probation Order (x2), failing to comply with a Release Order, failing to comply with an undertaking, failing to comply with a Weapons Prohibition Order, and uttering a death threat.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the testimony of the surety, who admitted to perjury at the bail hearing and had an extensive criminal record.

The court found the surety's evidence unreliable due to his credibility issues, lack of corroborating evidence, and the substantial amount of alcohol and drugs he consumed on the evening in question.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting her three-year-old son by striking him multiple times on the buttocks, causing extensive bruising, and grabbing him by the face while screaming at him.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought a suspended sentence with three years probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge for three years with conditions including curfew, probation supervision, participation in counselling and anger management programs, and restrictions on contact with the child except as authorized by the Children's Aid Society or family court order.

The court also imposed ancillary orders for DNA collection and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a complainant at a youth residence.

The trial focused on the issue of consent.

The complainant testified that she had consumed alcohol, lost consciousness, and woke to find the accused performing sexual acts on her.

The accused testified that the complainant had consented to the sexual activity through her words and actions.

The court found that the complainant's lack of memory was more consistent with a blackout state than complete unconsciousness, and that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the complainant was unconscious and unable to consent at the time of the alleged sexual activity.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused brought a Charter application under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence.

The search warrant was obtained to search a residence for crystal methamphetamine based on information from a confidential informant.

The accused challenged both the validity of the warrant and the particularity of the offence listed in Appendix B (which listed powder cocaine instead of crystal methamphetamine).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the issuing justice had sufficient grounds to issue the warrant based on the credible, compelling, and corroborated information from the confidential informant, and that the discrepancy in Appendix B was not a fatal defect.

This is a costs endorsement following a one-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a four-year-old child and a restraining order request.

The respondent was the successful party, obtaining sole custody, supervised parenting time for the applicant, a restraining order, and child support.

The court awarded costs of $2,500 to the respondent, inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The applicant, acting in person, did not rebut the presumption of costs in favour of the successful party and did not make submissions on costs.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 11(b) alleging a breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The accused was arrested on February 5, 2019 and charged with communicating with a person under the age of sixteen for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault and sexual interference, failure to comply with recognizance, and failure to comply with undertaking.

The trial was scheduled to commence approximately 22 months after arrest, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown argued that the delay attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and court suspension of operations constituted an exceptional circumstance justifying the delay.

The court found that 7 months and 10 days of delay could be attributed to the pandemic, reducing net delay to 14 months and 20 days, below the presumptive ceiling.

The court found the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to driving a motor vehicle on a highway carelessly causing bodily harm contrary to section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident occurred on August 18, 2019, when the defendant failed to stop at a stop sign and collided with another vehicle, causing severe spinal cord injuries to the victim resulting in full paralysis.

The court imposed a $2,000 fine with one year to pay, a two-year probation order prohibiting driving for the first year and restricting driving to employment or education purposes in the second year, and required completion of an approved educational driving program.

An application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act for child support for three children.

The claimant, residing in Minnesota, sought support from the respondent, residing in Ontario.

The respondent initially failed to respond but later attended hearings and provided oral evidence.

The court imputed the respondent's annual income at $36,000 based on his lifestyle and actual earnings, despite his tax return showing only $8,353.

The court ordered child support of $737 monthly per the guidelines table, retroactive to February 1, 2020, and credited the respondent for direct payments made to the claimant.