Court of Justice

A child protection application brought by the agency seeking custody orders for two children under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal, alternatively requesting return of the younger child and generous access to both children.

The court found both children to be in need of protection based on risk of physical and emotional harm, and made custody orders in favour of both fathers with supervised and unsupervised access provisions for the mother.

The case involved complex procedural issues, the mother's non-cooperation with assessments, and consideration of the children's wishes and best interests.

A police sergeant was charged with assault causing bodily harm under Section 267(b) of the Criminal Code for striking a complainant in the face during an arrest at a police station.

The complainant had attended the station to dispute a traffic ticket, became agitated, made threatening statements about arsons, and physically resisted arrest by locking his shoulder and keeping his hands apart to prevent handcuffing.

The sergeant delivered an open-hand distraction strike to the complainant's face, causing dental injuries.

The court found the sergeant's use of force was reasonable and necessary under Section 25 of the Criminal Code, as the complainant was actively resisting arrest and the second handcuff had not been fully secured at the time of the strike.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was convicted of two indictable offences of possessing child pornography contrary to section 163.1(4)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The first offence involved 49 accessible child pornographic images on a computer hard drive, discovered when the computer was brought in for repairs.

The second offence involved 30 hard copy photographs of preteen or young teenage females.

The court imposed a sentence of 8 months imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently, along with a 2-year probation order, a 5-year prohibition order under section 161, and a lifetime SOIRA order.

The court rejected the Crown's argument for an inflationary floor principle and the defence's argument for the minimum sentence, finding that 8 months was a fit sentence given the gravity of the offences and the offender's degree of responsibility.

The offender was sentenced for two counts of sexual touching of his 14-year-old daughter under section 151 of the Criminal Code, one count of inviting his daughter to touch his body with her mouth for a sexual purpose under section 152, one count of sexual intercourse with his daughter under section 155, and one count of breaching a non-contact condition of his recognizance under section 145(3).

The sexual offences occurred between June 18, 2013 and July 30, 2013, with the breach occurring between August 5, 2013 and October 28, 2013.

The offender had a prior criminal history of sexual offences against children dating back to 1987.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years in penitentiary for the sexual offences, minus credit for pre-trial detention, plus 60 days consecutive for the breach of recognizance.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess alcohol following a collision with a road sign on January 13, 2013.

The accused struck a street sign on a raised median while driving, then parked his vehicle on Sonoma Boulevard where he was found asleep by police approximately four hours later with breath readings of 180 and 184 mg/100ml.

The defence argued the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption of care or control by establishing he had returned to the vehicle only for shelter after attempting to walk home in the rain.

The court rejected the accused's evidence as internally inconsistent and implausible, finding he had not rebutted the presumption and was guilty on both counts.

The defendant was charged with production of marijuana and related offences.

He applied under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to quash search warrants that led to the discovery of marijuana plants.

The defendant held a production license allowing him to produce marijuana for personal medical purposes.

Four search warrants were issued for different units in a warehouse plaza—two licensed units (17 and 18) and two unlicensed units (15 and 16).

The licensed units were authorized for a combined total of 294 plants.

The defendant challenged whether the warrants had sufficient reasonable grounds to believe there was an "overgrow" in the licensed units and whether the unlicensed units were operating as a grow operation.

The court found that after excision and amplification of the Information to Obtain, the warrants were supported by reasonable grounds and dismissed the application.

The applicant father brought a motion to change seeking to impute income of $120,000 to the respondent mother for purposes of child support calculation.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion to reduce her child support obligations on a temporary basis, citing material changes in her financial circumstances since the execution of the separation agreement.

The court found that the mother had established a material change in circumstances, with her business revenues declining dramatically from $247,061 in 2010 to $41,766 in 2013.

However, the court rejected the father's request to impute income, finding his explanations for the decline in business revenues plausible and supported by the materials filed.

The court granted the mother's motion on a temporary basis, reversing the direction of child support payments.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving, possession of stolen license plates, and breach of probation arising from an incident on January 31, 2014, in a parking lot behind a bar in Hamilton.

Two plainclothes police officers observed a vehicle with three occupants and initiated a liquor license investigation.

When the officers approached, the vehicle accelerated and fled the scene.

The central issue was identification of the driver.

The court found the accused guilty of possession of stolen plates and breach of probation but acquitted on the dangerous driving charge due to insufficient evidence regarding the officer's precise location at the time of acceleration and uncertainty about whether the officer was directly in front of the vehicle.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol after failing a screening test at a RIDE checkpoint in Brampton.

The trial raised two issues: whether the police properly relied on the screening test result to justify a breath demand, and whether the accused's section 10(b) Charter rights were violated.

The court found that the officer reasonably administered the screening test and that the accused was provided with sufficient information and reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights to counsel.

The accused failed to be reasonably diligent in pursuing his rights by not informing police that he had a specific lawyer he wished to contact.

The court found the accused guilty of driving with excess blood alcohol.

The applicant sought a reference hearing under section 74 of the Firearms Act to challenge the Chief Firearms Officer's refusal to issue him a firearms licence.

The refusal was based on the applicant's membership in the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club, deemed a criminal organization.

The applicant had no criminal record, no mental health issues, and no history of violence.

The court upheld the refusal, finding that membership in a criminal organization constitutes a legitimate public safety concern under section 5(1) of the Firearms Act, even absent specific enumeration in section 5(2).

The provincial director applied under section 98 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act to continue custody for a young person convicted of attempted murder who had been released to community supervision.

The court found the application was improperly brought under section 98 rather than section 104, but proceeded on the merits applying the section 104 test.

The young person, now 19, had committed a brutal stabbing of his 8-year-old foster sibling at age 17.

Despite troubling psychiatric evidence regarding violent and sexual ideation disclosed in therapeutic settings, the court dismissed the application, finding that community-based supervision programs, including intensive monitoring, mental health treatment, and structured support, were adequate to manage risk and better serve the purposes of rehabilitation and reintegration under the YCJA.

This is a mid-trial evidentiary ruling in a family law matter concerning access to a child.

The respondent sought to introduce a decision from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board dated August 8, 2008, which had awarded compensation to the respondent for abuse allegedly perpetrated by the applicant.

The applicant opposed admission on hearsay grounds and argued that any probative value was outweighed by prejudicial impact.

The court ruled the Board's decision inadmissible on multiple grounds: it did not qualify as a public document, its content could not be used to buttress credibility under prior consistent statement principles, it was not necessary under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, and its prejudicial impact outweighed its probative value given that it was based on an ex parte hearing where the applicant had no opportunity to challenge the evidence.

The Crown sought to qualify a York Regional Police detective as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence regarding marijuana production, distribution, trafficking, pricing, and related matters.

The defence objected on grounds of bias, arguing that the proposed expert had conducted surveillance prior to the search warrants and was from the same police unit as the principal investigators.

The trial judge applied the four-part Mohan test and the Abbey framework, finding that while the expert met the threshold requirements, certain portions of the report were inadmissible due to bias concerns and case-specific opinions that could usurp the trier of fact's role.

Parents in a child protection proceeding brought a motion to remove the child's legal representative, Ms. Samira Ahmed of Justice for Children and Youth.

The child, nearly sixteen years old and in the care of the child protection society since February 2013, opposed the motion.

The parents argued the child lacked capacity to instruct counsel, that the representative exceeded her role, that a litigation guardian should be appointed, and that the representative had misused confidential information.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the child had clearly expressed views separate from both parents and the society, that legal representation was desirable, and that the representative had properly discharged her duties in advocating for the child's interests.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a warrant to apprehend and return a child in care pursuant to subsection 41(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child, age 13, had run away from foster care for the third time since July 2014.

The respondent mother supported the application.

The court determined that a judge of the Ontario Court of Justice has authority to issue such a warrant when acting as a justice of the peace under section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act.

The evidence met the statutory test: the child was under 16, had left care without consent, and there were reasonable and probable grounds that no other course of action would adequately protect the child.

The warrant was granted.

The defendant was charged with failing to stop at a red traffic light contrary to section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The central issue was whether the defendant entered an intersection while facing a red light or a green light.

The prosecution presented four witnesses who testified that the defendant ran a red light, while the defendant testified that he faced a green light.

The court applied the credibility assessment principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found the prosecution witnesses credible and reliable, particularly an independent witness who had an optimal vantage point to observe both traffic signals.

The defendant's testimony was found to be unreliable and inconsistent with the preponderance of prosecution evidence.

The court convicted the defendant.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, possession of marijuana contrary to section 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and breach of probation.

The offences occurred on June 12, 2014, when the accused, who had been drinking, became involved in a physical altercation with a long-standing acquaintance.

The accused has an extensive criminal history spanning approximately 11 years in custody, with a pattern of violent offences and threatening behaviour dating back to 1992.

The court imposed a sentence of 15 months imprisonment with credit for 164 days of pre-sentence custody (grossed up to 246 days at a 1.5:1 ratio), followed by a three-year probation order with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, weapons prohibition, substance abuse restrictions, and mandatory counselling.