Court of Justice

A costs endorsement following a focused hearing on the issue of additional overnight access to the father on alternate weekends in a family law matter.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $21,140.47 on a full recovery basis after being successful in opposing the respondent's (father's) request for additional overnight access.

The court awarded costs of $17,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, finding that the mother was reasonable, child-focused, and completely successful, while the father failed to serve any offers to settle and provided minimal evidentiary support for his position.

A motion concerning the temporary care of three children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent parents sought the return of two children (Charles and Thomas) from Society care, while the Society sought Crown wardship for those children and Society wardship for a third child (Charlotte) born prematurely during the proceedings.

The court applied the test under section 51(2) and (3) of the Act, finding that immediate risks to Charles and Thomas could be managed through intensive Society supervision and imposed conditions.

Charlotte remained in temporary Society care due to her fragility and the parents' inability to manage three young children simultaneously.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a roadside stop at an LCBO plaza.

The defence sought exclusion of breathalyzer results on grounds that the accused, whose first language was Punjabi, was not provided with rights to counsel and breath demand in his language until arrival at the police station, and that he was not given the opportunity to contact counsel of choice.

The court found no breach of Charter rights.

Although there were language difficulties at the roadside, the officer appropriately sought assistance from a Punjabi-speaking officer.

The breath demand was provided as soon as practicable given the language barrier.

The accused was informed of his right to counsel of choice but did not indicate he wished to contact private counsel.

The breathalyzer results were admitted and the accused was found guilty.

A trial concerning access and relocation issues involving twin children born in 2013.

The father sought to establish meaningful access with the children following separation from the mother.

The mother sought permission to relocate with the children to Niagara Falls.

The court found that the mother had engaged in a course of conduct to alienate the children from the father and had failed to actively encourage their relationship despite repeatedly stating she wished them to have contact.

The court permitted the relocation but ordered therapeutic reintegration services and maintained the father's access rights, finding the mother had not complied with her obligations as custodial parent to facilitate the father-child relationship.

The defendant was charged with two counts of assaulting police officers engaged in the lawful execution of their duties and one count of breaching a recognizance of bail.

The defendant was initially stopped for speeding and found to be in possession of two cellular telephones.

A computer check revealed the defendant was on bail for drug trafficking with a condition prohibiting possession of more than one cell phone.

The defendant argued the officer's arrest was unlawful due to misinterpretation of the bail condition, and therefore his assault on the officers was justified.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on objectively reasonable grounds, the defendant's assault was unjustified, and the defendant breached his bail condition by possessing two cell phones.

The offender pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, making it available to others, and breaching bail conditions by being in proximity to children.

The offender accessed child pornography online, created a profile on a Russian website facilitating such material, distributed files to an undercover officer on two occasions, and maintained a Dropbox account containing child abuse images.

Forensic examination revealed 3,555 images and 2,155 videos meeting the Criminal Code definition of child pornography, with material classified at the fourth level of the Oliver scale involving penetrative sexual activity between adults and children.

The offender also breached bail by attending a retirement party where children were present.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence, balancing the serious nature of the offences and aggravating factors against the offender's guilty plea, remorse, insight, rehabilitative efforts, and the impact on his elderly wife.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following a traffic stop on a highway.

The defence alleged that the stop was based on racial profiling and constituted an arbitrary detention in breach of section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that while the officer was honest in her testimony, the evidence demonstrated an absence of objective grounds for the detention and that the stop was motivated by non-conscious racial bias.

The court concluded that the officer's perception of the accused—a Black male driving early in the morning wearing a hooded sweatshirt with out-of-province license plates—unwittingly triggered non-conscious racial stereotyping.

The court excluded the breath analysis evidence as a result of the arbitrary detention.

A foster parent sought expanded rights of participation in a child protection proceeding at the access stage following a crown ward order.

The foster parent requested disclosure of the Society file (excluding the Kin Assessment), the ability to attend trial, cross-examine witnesses, present evidence and make submissions, and the ability to participate in arguments regarding admissibility of evidence.

The maternal grandmother opposed the motion, arguing that expanded participation was akin to party status and would be procedurally unfair.

The court granted the motion, finding that at the post-finding stage, a less restrictive approach should apply to foster parent participation, particularly where the foster parent is the identified permanency plan and has a legal interest in the outcome.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle on May 3, 2017.

The Crown alleged the accused operated a vehicle while impaired by alcohol based on observations of swerving driving behaviour and physical signs of impairment observed by police.

The defence argued the evidence was insufficient to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the accused had consumed alcohol and exhibited some signs consistent with impairment, the totality of evidence—including the absence of other driving impairment indicators, the reasonable explanation of the accused's condition as tiredness and shock at being awakened by police, and the rapid disappearance of apparent impairment signs—created a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to vary the mother's access to her seven-year-old daughter, seeking an order that access be at the Society's discretion.

The child had begun refusing to visit her mother in November 2017 after previously having regular, successful access.

The Society argued that forcing access would cause emotional and physical harm to the child.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while there was a sufficient change in circumstances, it was not in the child's best interests to suspend access.

The court emphasized the maximum contact principle, the lack of evidence-based reasons for the suspension, and the need for immediate counselling to address the underlying causes of the child's refusal.

This is a costs endorsement following motions to change child support and custody arrangements between former partners.

The applicant sought retroactive child support adjustment back to 2003 and prospective support, while the respondent sought termination of his child support obligation and support from the applicant.

The court found the respondent was the more successful party, having achieved termination of his support obligation effective March 1, 2017, and obtaining support from the applicant.

The applicant was partially successful in obtaining a three-year retroactive adjustment (2014-2017) and some section 7 expense contributions, but her 15-year retroactive claim was rejected.

The court awarded costs to the respondent.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood following a motor vehicle collision on March 5, 2016.

The defence brought a Charter motion alleging a breach of section 10(b) rights due to police failure to provide an interpreter to explain the defendant's rights to counsel, given the defendant's limited English proficiency.

The court conducted a blended Charter voir dire and trial.

The court found that while the defendant's first language was not English, there was insufficient objective evidence that the defendant failed to understand his rights to counsel or other information provided by police at the time of detention and arrest.

The court rejected the Charter breach argument and admitted the breath sample results.

The court found the defendant was the driver of the vehicle and convicted on both counts.

The applicant sought to stay proceedings for the offence of making an arrangement with a person to commit a sexual offence under section 172.2(2) of the Criminal Code, alleging entrapment by a police officer.

The applicant argued that the officer randomly tested his virtue without reasonable suspicion and alternatively that the officer induced him to commit the offence by exploiting his vulnerable state.

The court dismissed the application, finding that reasonable suspicion developed during the investigation through legitimate investigative steps, that the officer was engaged in a bona fide inquiry targeting a known hub for online sexual predators, and that there was no inducement or pressure applied to the applicant.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded on a blended basis addressing both the merits and a Charter application.

The defence alleged a section 8 Charter violation arising from police monitoring of the accused while she used the toilet on two occasions while in short-term police custody.

The Crown obtained breath samples of 160 and 143 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The trial judge found a serious section 8 violation and excluded the breath sample evidence pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a vehicle while impaired by a drug (inhalant) on June 3, 2016.

The Crown alleged the accused was in the driver's seat of a running vehicle while under the influence of aerosol inhalants.

The defence argued the accused did not have care or control as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boudreault.

The court found that although the accused was impaired and in the driver's seat, there was no realistic risk of danger because the accused had a clear plan to remain parked until the effects wore off, the vehicle had a standard transmission with an engaged parking brake requiring multiple discrete acts to set in motion, and the accused's impairment was short-lived with rapid recovery.

The accused was acquitted.

The applicant mother brought a motion to change a child support order dated April 6, 2009, seeking retroactive contribution from the respondent father towards section 7 expenses (special or extraordinary expenses) incurred between 2012 and 2016, particularly for the daughter's post-secondary education costs totalling approximately $26,906.66.

The respondent failed to respond to the motion and was noted in default.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that although a change in circumstances existed, a retroactive increase in child support was not warranted based on the D.B.S. factors.

The court concluded that the father had paid an appropriate amount of child support and that the daughter would not benefit from a retroactive award.