Court of Justice

Following a six-day trial, the defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The defendant, a middle-aged crisis counselling caseworker, had sexually assaulted a vulnerable teenage girl under his care by touching her and making sexualized comments.

The court rejected the defendant's request for an absolute discharge and the Crown's request for 90 days incarceration plus probation.

Instead, the court imposed a 9-month conditional sentence order with strict house arrest conditions for the first six months, followed by 15 months of probation, along with mandatory DNA collection and sex offender registration for 10 years.

The court considered the impact of COVID-19 on institutional conditions in determining to impose a conditional sentence rather than institutional imprisonment.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and weapons offences involving methamphetamine and firearms.

The Crown sought 18 months to two years less a day, while the defence sought a time-served disposition citing COVID-19 pandemic concerns in correctional facilities.

The court imposed five months additional custody following 207 days of presentence custody credit, followed by 18 months probation.

The judge considered the pandemic as a sentencing factor but concluded it did not warrant a substantial reduction from the range discussed at the judicial pretrial.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl, possession for the purpose of trafficking cocaine, and possession of the proceeds of crime.

Appearing by teleconference from pre-trial custody during the COVID-19 pandemic, the accused sought to enter a guilty plea without legal representation.

The court determined that the matter qualified as urgent under pandemic protocols due to the accused's deplorable detention conditions and Charter rights considerations.

However, the court held that while teleconference proceedings were not prohibited by the Criminal Code, video conferencing was preferable and required in this case to ensure a full and fair hearing for an unrepresented accused.

The court scheduled the guilty plea and sentencing hearing for video conference two days later.

Motion review of an emergency restraining order granted without notice on April 2, 2020.

The applicant sought to restrain the respondent from direct or indirect contact with her and their infant daughter, and from approaching their residence or workplace.

The respondent contested the order, denying allegations of abuse and arguing he had voluntarily left the home.

The court found evidence of emotional and aggressive behaviour, including the respondent's admission to breaking down a locked door.

The court granted a modified restraining order prohibiting direct contact and requiring communication through counsel, while establishing supervised access to the child through a third party facilitator.

The court also established a temporary parenting schedule pending a case conference.

The custodial father brought a motion to suspend the mother's face-to-face parenting time with their 12-year-old son during the COVID-19 pandemic, citing the child's alleged medical vulnerability and concerns about the mother's ability to follow health protocols.

The mother opposed the motion and sought restoration of her parenting time with make-up access.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting assessment of the child's best interests but determined that the child's medical condition did not justify suspension of access.

While the mother had engaged in one instance of non-compliance with physical distancing protocols, the court found this insufficient to warrant radical alteration of the existing parenting arrangement.

The court restored the mother's parenting time with minor modifications to address COVID-19 health concerns and granted make-up time for missed access.

The appellant appealed her guilty pleas to multiple Provincial Offences Act charges, including operating a motor vehicle without insurance and failing to comply with probation.

She argued that her guilty plea was not informed, that she acted under duress, and sought to have the entire proceeding quashed and sent back for trial.

The trial court had imposed a sentence of 7 days in jail and a $5,000 fine.

The appeal court examined the validity of the guilty plea under the five conditions set out in the Provincial Offences Act and found that the appellant failed to meet her onus of demonstrating that the plea was involuntary, uninformed, or equivocal.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent grandmother sought an urgent motion for the return of her grandson to her care after the applicant father refused to return the child following temporary extended access during the COVID-19 pandemic school closures.

The father claimed concerns about COVID-19 exposure in the grandmother's household but failed to bring a motion to change the custody order.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and a breach of the existing final custody order.

The parties reached a resolution and the child was returned to the grandmother's custody.

The court addressed the issue of costs, finding that while the father's conduct was unreasonable, it did not rise to the level of bad faith.

No costs were ordered, but the father was warned of potential cost sanctions for future non-compliance.

The applicant (mother) and respondent (father) brought competing urgent motions regarding custody and access to their two young children during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The respondent sought interim custody and primary residence, while the applicant sought to maintain the interim custody order granted in her favour on January 6, 2020.

The court found that while the respondent had been the primary caregiver prior to December 23, 2019, his physically aggressive and threatening behaviour on that date—including threatening to cut the applicant's car tires with a kitchen knife—provided compelling grounds to maintain the children in the applicant's temporary care.

The court granted interim sole custody to the applicant with liberal and unsupervised access to the respondent, subject to specific terms governing parental conduct, alcohol consumption, and communication.

The court rejected the respondent's argument that COVID-19 concerns created urgency, finding that both parents had demonstrated appropriate safety precautions.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual touching of a person under 16 years of age.

The Crown alleged that between December 2018 and April 2019, the accused engaged in oral sex with a 14-year-old girl, and on July 5, 2019, was found in bed with the same girl who was then 15 years old and pregnant.

The accused claimed he believed the complainant was 17 years old and that his conduct on July 5, 2019 was motivated by concern for her pregnancy.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, determining that he did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age and that his evidence was not credible.

The Children's Aid Society sought to vary a temporary access order to suspend in-person visits between a 16-month-old child and his parents during the COVID-19 pandemic, proposing to replace them with video access only.

The parents opposed the motion, arguing that the Society was applying a blanket policy inappropriate to their specific circumstances.

The court found that while COVID-19 constituted a significant change in circumstances, the Society failed to establish that complete suspension of in-person access was proportionate.

The court granted the motion in part, permitting in-person access to continue under strict COVID-19 safety protocols, while suspending the weekday visits at the Society's offices and replacing them with video access.

This is a costs decision following urgent COVID-19 motions concerning parenting arrangements for twin children.

The applicant sought to enforce an existing parenting order and obtain make-up access time, while the respondent sought to suspend the applicant's access due to pandemic concerns.

The court found in favour of the applicant on the substantive motion.

In this costs endorsement, the court awarded costs to the successful party, finding that the respondent acted unreasonably by unilaterally terminating access without proper justification, making unfounded allegations, and demonstrating a pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The court fixed costs at $5,000 inclusive of HST, representing a middle ground between the claimed amounts, to sanction the respondent's conduct while maintaining proportionality.

The reasons for judgment in this criminal matter are not available at this time.

The case involves the Crown against Jordan in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Society brought a motion to vary a temporary child protection order to permit unsupervised access between the mother and two children (ages 12 and 8).

The children had been placed in the father's care following allegations that the mother and her sisters subjected them to physical discipline during fundamentalist religious practices.

The mother faced criminal charges which were resolved through a peace bond.

The court found sufficient change in circumstances to warrant expanded access, including the resolution of criminal charges, the mother's participation in counselling and parenting courses, removal of the aunt primarily responsible from the home, and the children's expressed desire to see their mother more.

The court ordered a phased approach to access beginning with day visits, progressing to overnight weekend visits, with various protective terms and conditions including restrictions on prayer, contact with the removed aunt, and compliance with COVID-19 protocols.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a ten-year-old child.

The mother was the successful party, obtaining primary residence and custody with specified access to the father, and securing an increase in child support.

The father's unreasonable conduct throughout the litigation, including failure to comply with disclosure timelines, refusal to participate in a Children's Lawyer investigation, and delay in agreeing to support, influenced the costs award.

The court fixed costs at $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $400 per month commencing May 1, 2020.

The court allocated 15% of the costs award as a support order enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion seeking resumption of parenting time, police enforcement of a court order, and a finding that the mother had moved the child's residence in contravention of a court order.

The mother sought authorization to relocate the child from Etobicoke to her parents' home in Newmarket prior to trial.

The court found that while the mother initially took the child to her parents' home for March Break during the COVID-19 pandemic, she failed to return as required by a prior court order.

The court determined that the relocation was not necessitated by the health crisis and ordered the mother to return the child to the Etobicoke residence pending trial.

The relocation issue was reserved for determination at trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited or restricted weapon contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether the plea and sentencing could proceed by audioconference rather than in person or by video.

The accused had been in custody since March 2019 and wished to plead guilty expeditiously.

The court ruled that both subsection 650(2)(b) and section 715.23 of the Criminal Code provided authority for the plea to proceed by audioconference, distinguishing the case from R. v. Candelaria on the basis that the accused was represented by counsel and had expressly waived his right to appear in person or by video.

The respondent brought a motion to change the final custody and access order from 2014, seeking to establish a fixed 50/50 summer parenting schedule for the child.

The applicant opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances required to vary the 2014 consent order.

The court determined that the parties had established a negotiation-based process for determining summer access that was consistent with the 2014 order and that this process, while sometimes difficult, had not negatively affected the child.

The court also found that the respondent was barred by action estoppel from relitigating the summer access issue, which had been addressed in prior proceedings through settlement negotiations.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving causing death following a collision on May 15, 2018, that resulted in the death of Jonas Mitchell.

At the preliminary inquiry, the court found that while the Crown could establish the actus reus (the dangerous act of entering an intersection on a red light), it could not establish the required mens rea (mental element) of a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

The court discharged the accused, finding that momentary inattention for approximately nine to ten seconds, without evidence of speeding, deliberate red-light running, or erratic maneuvers, did not constitute the criminal fault required for dangerous driving.

The court emphasized that carelessness alone is insufficient for criminal liability and that the consequences of the accident, while tragic, cannot drive the charge when the manner of driving does not meet the criminal threshold.

This is a costs endorsement following a temporary child and spousal support motion.

The applicant sought costs of $7,067.02 after obtaining a more favourable result than her settlement offer.

The respondent acted in bad faith by deliberately avoiding financial disclosure, unduly delaying proceedings, stopping support payments despite ability to pay, and misrepresenting his income.

The court found the respondent's offer to settle was more favourable than the motion result, triggering full recovery costs consequences.

The court also found bad faith conduct warranting full recovery costs under the Family Law Rules.

The respondent's costs were fixed at $7,067.02, payable immediately.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 116(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to vary a December 10, 2018 order placing a 12-year-old child in the mother's care.

The society sought to place the child in its temporary care and custody.

The mother opposed the motion and sought to retain custody or alternatively place the child with her sister (the maternal aunt).

The court found that the mother had breached substantially all terms of the supervision order, including failing to maintain stable housing, refusing to sign consents for the society to communicate with medical professionals, and failing to cooperate with the society.

The court determined that the child's best interests required removal from the mother's care and granted the society's motion for temporary custody with access in the society's discretion.

The society was directed to investigate a kinship placement with the maternal aunt.