Court of Justice

A custody and access trial involving a child born to unmarried parents who subsequently married and separated.

The applicant mother, facing deportation to St. Vincent due to illegal immigration status, sought sole custody and permission to remove the child from Canada.

The respondent father sought sole or joint custody with a non-removal order.

The court found the mother's evidence lacked credibility due to her illegal status and inconsistent testimony.

The court ordered joint custody with primary residence to the mother while she remains in Canada, with extensive access to the father.

If deported, sole custody transfers to the father.

The court imposed a non-removal order preventing the mother from taking the child out of Ontario without court order, while permitting the father to travel freely with the child.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault against a 62-year-old woman with severe physical disabilities (cerebral palsy, wheelchair-bound) residing in a long-term care facility.

The accused, a 65-year-old volunteer visitor with no criminal record, digitally penetrated the victim and engaged in prior unwanted touching.

The victim clearly communicated non-consent.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by two years of probation, finding that the accused exploited the victim's vulnerability and demonstrated a profound lack of insight into the wrongfulness of his conduct, maintaining delusional beliefs about the victim's consent.

The accused was charged with driving with blood alcohol content over 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The Crown sought to introduce a Certificate of Analysis as evidence.

The sole issue was whether the Crown had proved compliance with section 258(7) of the Criminal Code, which requires that the accused be given a copy of the certificate prior to trial.

The investigating officer's evidence was contradictory and ultimately revealed that he did not provide the certificate to the accused.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the accused received a copy of the certificate and ruled the certificate inadmissible.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document.

While employed as a bookkeeper for a property management company, she defrauded the company and various condominium corporations of approximately $340,000 over a nine-month period.

The accused sent the funds to an individual she met online and believed she was helping someone in distress who would repay her.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by three years' probation, finding that denunciation and general deterrence required incarceration despite significant mitigating factors including genuine remorse, good character, and the accused's own victimization by an online romance scam.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault against a woman with Cerebral Palsy during a specialized transportation service on July 1, 2013.

The complainant alleged the accused intentionally touched her breasts while ostensibly loosening her seatbelt.

The accused testified he accidentally grazed her chest while losing his footing while attempting to untangle a tangled seatbelt.

The trial judge found both witnesses credible but their accounts were in stark opposition.

With no independent witnesses, forensic evidence, or strong testimonial inconsistencies, the judge could not reach a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and entered an acquittal.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter motion seeking a stay of proceedings for impaired operation and drive over 80mg charges.

The applicant alleged violations of Charter rights including section 7 and 8 rights regarding video recording in police cells.

The court found that the respondent caused the adjournment of the initial trial date through late filing of its Charter response notice and late disclosure of Police Cell Videotaping Pilot Project materials, particularly Phase 2 materials unknown to the applicant.

The court calculated 12 months and 4 days of combined institutional and crown delay, substantially exceeding Morin guidelines.

The court found both inferred prejudice based on delay duration and actual prejudice in the form of financial stress to the applicant.

The application was allowed and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

The accused, a lawyer, was charged with multiple counts of money laundering, possession of proceeds of crime, fraud, and conspiracy related to an international ephedrine exportation scheme operated by Afshin Dastani.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of Dastani, who admitted to operating an illegal drug exportation business and claimed he disclosed the illicit nature of his activities to the accused.

The court found Dastani to be an unreliable and discredited witness due to numerous inconsistencies in his evidence and a pattern of deception toward family, friends, legal advisors, and government authorities.

Without credible evidence of the accused's knowledge that funds were proceeds of crime, the court acquitted the accused on all charges.

Appeals by Richard Storey and Peter Cordeiro against convictions and sentences for offences under the Consumer Protection Act.

Both appellants were tried in absentia and convicted.

The original sentences imposed were significantly harsher than those sought by Crown counsel.

On judicial pretrial, the Crown and defence counsel agreed that the original sentences were unreasonable and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The convictions were upheld on consent, but the sentences were substantially varied to reflect more proportionate terms of imprisonment, with concurrent rather than consecutive service, and restitution orders were imposed.

An appeal from a conviction under provincial motor vehicle legislation.

The appellant, claiming Aboriginal status, argued that the Province of Ontario has no jurisdiction over Indigenous persons and therefore provincial laws do not apply to them.

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences under the Highway Traffic Act and Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that provincial laws of general application apply to all persons within the province, including Indigenous persons, and that driving a motor vehicle on a public highway does not constitute an Aboriginal right protected under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

The defendant brought an O'Connor application seeking production of medical records from the Peterborough Regional Health Centre and Brampton Civic Hospital relating to the complainant.

The court applied the test from R. v. McNeil, which requires assessment of true relevancy of targeted records.

The court found that the records contained apparent inconsistencies in the complainant's account of assaults and evidence of delusions at the time of the alleged assaults.

The court determined that the defendant's right to make full answer and defence outweighed the complainant's privacy interests and ordered production of relevant portions of the records, subject to a condition that they be used only for the defendant's defence.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault causing serious bodily injury to the victim, resulting in bilateral jaw fractures requiring surgical intervention.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment with credit for pre-sentence custody, followed by three years probation with conditions including restitution, no-contact orders, and a weapons prohibition.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing principles, noting the serious nature of the assault, the vulnerability of the victim, and the accused's significant criminal history despite no prior convictions for violence.

The defendant, a 19-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine on January 16, 2015, with two additional trafficking incidents read in on consent.

The Crown sought an intermittent custody sentence, while the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation.

The court found exceptional circumstances existed based on the defendant's difficult background, including childhood trauma, abuse, and displacement, combined with demonstrated rehabilitation efforts post-offence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with a two-year probation term, finding that custody would jeopardize rehabilitation and that protection of the public was better served by a non-custodial sentence.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found unconscious in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle.

The Crown conceded that the accused was seated in the driver's position and that his ability to drive was impaired with blood alcohol over the legal limit.

The sole issue was whether the accused had care or control of the vehicle.

The court found that the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(a) by establishing on a balance of probabilities that he did not occupy the driver's seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion.

The court further found that the Crown failed to prove de facto care or control, as the requisite realistic risk of danger was not present.

The accused was acquitted of both counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit on February 5, 2014.

The trial spanned multiple dates over approximately one year.

The defence raised a Charter application and argued that the defendant's regurgitation of stomach contents raised a reasonable doubt as to the reliability of the breath test results.

The court rejected the defence arguments, finding the breath test readings reliable based on expert evidence and the defendant's testimony to be unreliable due to numerous contradictions.

The accused was found guilty.

At sentencing, the court imposed a $1,400 fine (with a $420 victim surcharge), a 12-month driving prohibition, and a 12-month probation order with conditions to attend counselling for alcohol abuse and mental health challenges.

This is a summary judgment motion under the Child and Family Services Act where the Children's Aid Society sought a permanent custody order (section 57.1) placing a child with the paternal grandmother.

The biological mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care, alternatively requesting a supervision order or access arrangements.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's continued need for protection and determined that placement with the grandmother was in the child's best interests.

The mother's evidence of progress in mental health treatment was insufficient to overcome concerns about her lack of engagement with the child over one year, her refusal to permit home visits, and her ongoing behavioral issues during access visits.

This is a disposition hearing in a child protection application following a bifurcated hearing.

The Children's Aid Society of Oxford County sought Crown wardship without access for a child born in 2008.

The biological mother sought placement without supervision, while the maternal grandparents sought placement as an alternative.

The court found the child to be in need of protection based on exposure to domestic violence, parental substance abuse, mental health issues, and failure to follow protective advice.

The court ordered Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption, finding that the child had formed a secure attachment to the foster family and that returning the child to the mother or grandparents would cause significant harm.

The court dismissed the mother's and grandparents' placement plans and denied access to the biological family.

A mother sought to bring a status review application to challenge a Crown wardship order made in 2014.

The Children's Aid Society moved to strike the application as statute barred under subsection 65.1(7) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court found that the application was statute barred because it was issued within the prohibited period running from the service of a Notice of Appeal through six months following the final disposition of that appeal.

The court also found that even if the application were not statute barred, the mother would not meet the test for leave to proceed under subsection 65.1(5) of the Act.

The applicant brought a motion under the Hague Convention seeking to enforce a Superior Court order for Skype access by requiring the respondent to produce the three children at a supervised access centre.

The applicant, a British citizen residing in Japan, sought to compel compliance with a 2011 access order.

The respondent, a Canadian citizen residing in Ontario with the children, opposed the motion, arguing the children were unenthusiastic about the access.

The court declined to grant the order, finding that Skype access at a supervised access centre without a forward-looking plan would not be in the children's best interests and that the enforcement matter was inextricably linked to unresolved issues in the underlying Superior Court action.

Motion to change a custody and access order dated November 22, 2012.

The applicant sought to change the access pick-up location, retain a psychologist to facilitate access, and modify the child support arrangement and overpayment repayment schedule.

The respondent sought appointment of the Children's Lawyer for a section 112 investigation and requested the applicant designate the respondent as beneficiary on a life insurance policy in trust for the child.

The court approved retention of a psychologist for open intervention to assess the child's views regarding access, dismissed the Children's Lawyer appointment request, deferred the pick-up location change pending the psychologist's report, modified the child support amount based on changed income circumstances, and established a repayment schedule for the overpaid child support.

The court dismissed the life insurance beneficiary designation request as exceeding its jurisdiction.

This is a costs decision following a trial in a family law matter involving custody and access.

The applicant was successful at trial and obtained an order granting supervised access to the respondent with various restrictions, including a 100-metre exclusion zone from the applicant's home, workplace, and child's school, and limiting communications to a designated program.

The respondent, who was self-represented, opposed the costs award and made unfounded allegations against the applicant's counsel.

The court awarded costs on a full recovery basis, finding both that the applicant was the successful party and that the respondent acted in bad faith through persistent attempts to have the applicant's counsel removed from the record by complaining to the judge, legal aid, and the Law Society.