Court of Justice

At a preliminary inquiry into the deaths of Tyler McLean and Zemarai Khan Mohammed, who were shot outside the Rebel nightclub on October 1, 2017, the Crown sought committal of both accused on murder charges.

Tanade Mohamed conceded committal on two counts of second-degree murder as the alleged shooter.

Abdirisaq Ali, who drove the vehicle from which the shots were fired, contested committal and sought to be committed only as an accessory after the fact.

The court found that while the accessory provisions captured Ali's involvement, there was a reasonable inference that Ali knew Mohamed had a gun and intended to assist in the murders, based on Ali's conduct in positioning the vehicle, waiting in the parking lot, and fleeing the scene.

The court committed both accused to stand trial on two counts of second-degree murder.

The applicant sought a refraining order to prevent the Director of the Family Responsibility Office from directing the suspension of his driver's licence pursuant to a Final Notice dated November 1, 2018.

The applicant had previously obtained a refraining order in August 2017 on terms requiring him to bring a motion to change the underlying support order and make specified monthly payments.

The applicant failed to comply with these terms, causing the refraining order to terminate automatically.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to grant a refraining order in response to a Final Notice, as the statutory framework under Part V of the Family Arrears and Support Enforcement Act permits refraining orders only in response to a First Notice.

The motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In a child protection status review application, the Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking custody of a child who had suffered serious unexplained injuries at two months of age.

The child had been in foster care and subsequently in the care of paternal grandparents under a supervision order.

The biological mother opposed the motion, arguing that counselling she had undertaken created a genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to care for the child.

The court found that the unexplained injuries, combined with the mother's lack of insight, ongoing lack of cooperation with the Society, and the conclusions of a parenting capacity assessment, established an ongoing need for protection.

The court granted summary judgment, placing the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents with supervised access for the mother.

The defendant brought an application for particulars in response to the Crown's brief response to a Charter application alleging violations of sections 7, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant argued that the Crown's response was deficient in form and substance, being silent on some grounds and lacking precision on others.

The court dismissed the application for particulars without prejudice, finding that the defendant was not prejudiced in establishing the alleged Charter violations given that counsel had been retained for over two months, disclosure had been provided, and the parties had agreed to a blended voir dire procedure.

The applicants (maternal grandparents) brought a motion requesting an order pursuant to sections 89 and 112 of the Courts of Justice Act that the Office of the Children's Lawyer be requested to investigate the circumstances of claims for custody and/or access to the child.

The respondents (biological parents) opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer would be helpful in determining the child's best interests given the complex factual disputes, the child's age and ability to express herself, and the child protection overtones in the case.

A Toronto Police Service officer pleaded guilty to obstructing justice by destroying or converting evidence to his own use.

During the execution of a search warrant at a marijuana dispensary, the officer stole three cannabis-infused chocolate bars that had been overlooked during the search.

He later consumed one of the bars while on duty and armed with a firearm, resulting in severe intoxication.

His impaired state led him to make a false officer-in-need-of-assistance call, which caused responding officers to rush to the scene.

One officer was seriously injured in the response.

The evidence tampering resulted in the withdrawal of criminal charges against seven persons.

The court rejected a conditional discharge despite the officer's otherwise exemplary 13-year career, finding that a conviction and conditional sentence of imprisonment was necessary to protect the rule of law and denounce the egregious breach of public trust.

The applicant mother brought a motion for an order striking the respondent father's pleadings for non-disclosure and for child and spousal support based on imputing income of $95,800 to the father retroactive to October 2016.

The respondent father filed a cross-motion requesting income be imputed to him at $76,960 or lesser amounts and for specified Skype access.

The court declined to strike the pleadings, finding the father had substantially complied with disclosure requirements.

The court declined to impute income to the father, finding his actual income should be used.

The court ordered child support arrears and ongoing child support based on the father's actual income, and ordered temporary spousal support at the low end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines range, finding the mother had established a prima facie case for entitlement on both compensatory and need bases.

This is a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning two children who were apprehended in November 2015 following serious injuries inflicted by the mother's partner.

The mother sought return of the children to her care or placement with her mother.

The Society sought an order for extended care to facilitate adoption by the current kinship placement.

The court found that the mother had not adequately addressed the protection concerns despite significant support and services over 26 months.

The court ordered extended care of both children with the Society, with the children holding access rights to the mother at the Society's discretion.

The applicant mother obtained an ex parte order granting her sole custody and discretionary access to the respondent father, alleging physical discipline and anger issues.

On review of the ex parte order and the father's cross-motion for custody and access, the court vacated the ex parte order.

The court found no current need for supervised access, noting the father admitted to a single incident of inappropriate discipline and promised not to repeat it.

The court granted the mother interim custody and the father unsupervised access every other weekend and midweek, emphasizing the need for both parents to co-parent without involving the children in their conflict.

The defendant brought a motion to sever two counts of sexual assault involving two separate complainants, seeking to have two separate trials during a scheduled four-day trial period.

The Crown opposed the application, intending to bring a similar fact application between the counts.

The court applied the "interests of justice" test under section 591(3) of the Criminal Code, considering factors including general prejudice, legal and factual nexus, testimonial intention, avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings, and the viability of a similar fact application.

The court found that while some factors favoured severance, the viability of the similar fact application and the truth-seeking function of the trial weighed significantly against severance.

The application was dismissed.

Two accused were charged with possession of diacetylmorphine, cocaine, and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop by York Regional Police.

The Crown alleged the drugs were seized during a lawful traffic stop and search incident to arrest.

Both accused challenged the legality of the stop under section 9 of the Charter and the adequacy of rights to counsel information under section 10(b).

The court found the traffic stop was arbitrary and pretextual, conducted ostensibly for Highway Traffic Act purposes but actually motivated by bail compliance concerns without reasonable suspicion.

The court also found a section 10(b) breach regarding the information provided about rights to counsel.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court excluded all drug evidence and acquitted both accused.

The applicant sought custody of two children and sought to restrict the respondent's access to supervised visits only, citing concerns about physical discipline and anger management.

The respondent sought to restore what he characterized as the status quo of every weekend access.

The court found that the status quo was the applicant having custody with the respondent exercising weekend access and paying chart child support.

The court rejected the applicant's request for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence to warrant such restriction.

The court established an access schedule of every other weekend and midweek Wednesday visits, with special Christmas access provisions.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents supporting the children's relationship with the other parent and discouraged cross-examination of children about their time with the other parent.

The applicant father sought the return of his six-year-old daughter to Norway pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction after the respondent mother removed the child from Norway to Canada in February 2017 without his consent.

The respondent mother argued that the Convention did not apply because the child's habitual residence was Canada, not Norway, and that the father had no custodial rights.

Alternatively, she argued that exceptions to the Convention applied based on grave risk of harm and the child's objection to return.

The court found that the child's habitual residence was Norway, that the father had custodial rights under Norwegian law, and that the removal was wrongful.

The court rejected both exceptions, finding that the mother's evidence of grave risk of harm was insufficient and that the child's objections were not based on substantial reasons but rather on parental influence and preference for her current life.

The court ordered the child's return to Norway.

The accused was charged with Over 80 Operation following a RIDE spot check on December 2, 2017.

The court considered two Charter issues: whether the administration of an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test violated section 8 rights due to potential residual mouth alcohol, and whether the failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice violated section 10(b) rights.

The court found a section 10(b) violation but admitted the breath test evidence under the Grant analysis, ultimately convicting the accused.

The applicant sought to set aside guilty pleas entered on April 13, 2016, to three counts of knowingly using forged documents, totalling $138,807.01 in losses.

The applicant claimed the pleas were involuntary and uninformed, alleging his counsel pressured him to plead guilty and failed to inform him that the Crown would seek a freestanding restitution order.

The court rejected the applicant's evidence as lacking credibility and accepted the counsel's evidence that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.

The applicant was aware of the Crown's intention to seek restitution and had multiple opportunities to disclose any improper pressure.

The application was dismissed and the guilty pleas were upheld.

The court addressed an ex parte communication from an unrepresented accused who objected to the pre-trial process and requested a further judicial pre-trial meeting.

The accused had failed to attend the Trial Co-ordinator's office following a judicial pre-trial conference and subsequently sent an unsigned letter to the court raising procedural objections.

The court rejected the accused's objections, finding the pre-trial process was properly conducted and that trial dates could be set.

The court reminded the accused that ex parte communications with the judge are prohibited and that all future communications must occur in open court on the record.

The appellant appealed a conviction entered under section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act following her failure to appear at trial.

The appellant challenged the certificate of offence on the ground that the officer failed to check off the a.m./p.m. box next to the time of the alleged offence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the omission of the a.m./p.m. designation was a highly technical deficiency that could not cause prejudice to the defendant, as the time of the offence is not an essential averment and is not relevant to the defendant's decision whether to contest the charge.

The court emphasized that the section 9.1 procedure is intended to permit judges to decide cases on their merits and to avoid having proceedings invalidated because of technical objections having no prejudicial impact.