Court of Justice

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference and one count of breach of probation.

The offences involved repeated touching of the vaginal areas of two young girls, ages 8 and 9, while babysitting them, in breach of a probation order prohibiting contact with children under 16.

The accused had a prior criminal record for similar sexual offences.

A psychological assessment indicated heterosexual pedophilia with moderately high reoffending risk.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that a custodial sentence of 4 years was appropriate.

The court imposed concurrent sentences of 4 years for the sexual interference counts and 2 years less one day for the breach of probation, along with DNA sampling, a SORIA order, and orders under sections 161 and 109 of the Criminal Code.

This is a ruling on a preliminary jurisdictional issue concerning whether a motion to change a custody order should be heard in the Ontario Court of Justice or the Superior Court of Justice.

The original order was made by the Superior Court of Justice, Family Court Branch in Hamilton pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, granting custody to the applicants with access to the respondent mother at their discretion.

The respondent mother sought to vary the order.

The court determined that since a section 57.1 order is deemed to be a custody order under the Children's Law Reform Act, and the original order was made in the Superior Court of Justice, any variation of that order must proceed in the Superior Court of Justice.

The motion was transferred to the Superior Court of Justice in Milton.

The accused was convicted of child luring after engaging in online chat and text message exchanges with an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old girl.

The exchanges became progressively sexual and were clearly leading towards an intended live sexual encounter.

The Crown sought a 15-month jail sentence, while the accused sought a conditional sentence or shorter imprisonment.

The court imposed a 12-month sentence of imprisonment followed by two years of probation, along with ancillary orders including a DNA Data-Banking Order, a SOIRA Order, and a prohibition order under section 161 for five years.

This is a costs decision arising from a temporary motion by the mother to relocate her child from Ontario to Nova Scotia.

The mother was successful in obtaining permission to relocate.

The court awarded costs to the successful mother, considering factors under the Family Law Rules including the importance of the issues, the reasonableness of each party's behavior, the lawyer's rates, time spent, expenses, and other relevant matters.

The father's failure to serve an offer to settle and his lack of full financial disclosure were significant factors in the costs award.

A trial decision concerning custody, access, and child support for a three-year-old child born to unmarried parents who maintained separate homes throughout their relationship.

The applicant sought joint custody under a parallel parenting model with equal decision-making authority in separate domains and significantly increased weekend access.

The respondent sought sole custody with alternate weekend access and mid-week visits.

The court found no evidence of alienating behaviour by the respondent and rejected the parallel parenting model, awarding sole custody to the respondent with restrictions on her decision-making authority, alternate weekend access to the applicant, and a mid-week overnight visit.

Child support was ordered on a proportionate income basis.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change a separation agreement.

The applicant mother sought to recover her legal costs of $29,896.76 after successfully obtaining an order requiring the respondent father to pay his proportionate share of the children's extraordinary expenses.

The mother had served a comprehensive, severable offer to settle that was more favourable to the father than the court's final order.

The father, who was self-represented, did not respond to the offer and litigated each issue unsuccessfully.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a full recovery basis, finding that she had acted reasonably and that the father's failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer and his attempt to disregard contractual obligations regarding child support warranted a substantial costs award.

The respondent father brought a motion to implement recommendations of a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer regarding custody and access arrangements.

The applicant mother disputed the recommendations and filed a cross-motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding the mother was the successful party.

The mother sought costs of $2,726.05, while the father sought $9,715.00 or alternatively no costs order.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $2,900.00 inclusive of disbursements and taxes, finding the mother was the successful party on the primary issue and more successful on the secondary issue regarding summer access.

The accused was charged with driving while having over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defence brought a disclosure application seeking manuals used by police in conducting periodic inspections of the Intoxilyzer 8000C.

The Crown initially refused disclosure, arguing the materials were third-party records requiring an O'Connor application.

The court determined that certain manuals in the possession of the investigating officer were subject to Stinchcombe disclosure obligations.

The court ordered partial disclosure of training materials and maintenance protocols relevant to the proper functioning and operation of the instrument, finding such materials essential to preparing a defence.

The defendant was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and failure to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample.

The Crown conceded the second charge and it was dismissed.

The court found the defendant guilty of the first charge.

The central issue was whether the defendant had care and control of the vehicle.

The court found that the defendant's actual operation of the vehicle—moving it from a gas pump to a parking spot—established care and control.

The defendant's intoxication was established through witness testimony and video evidence.

The accused was convicted of uttering threats against the mayor of Sault Ste.

Marie under section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and breach of recognizance for failing to report to a bail program.

The accused spent 160 days in pre-trial detention.

The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment on the threatening charge and one month consecutive on the breach charge, but credited seven months of pre-trial detention, resulting in time served.

The court imposed a three-year probation order with conditions including staying away from the mayor and City Hall, and a ten-year weapons prohibition.

Motion to change a spousal support order.

The respondent sought to terminate or reduce his spousal support obligation of $1,200 per month (indexed), claiming material change in circumstances including decreased self-employment income due to age and physical ailments, possible end of common-law relationship, and applicant's refusal to utilize her LIRA or accept contributions from their adult daughter.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought a lump sum payment of accumulated arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances limited to the respondent's ability to earn self-employment income.

The court reduced spousal support to $506 per month based on imputed incomes of $28,479 (respondent) and $14,591.52 (applicant), and increased arrears repayment from $50 to $913 per month.

The court rejected claims to impute income to the applicant and dismissed the applicant's request to prohibit further variation motions.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death arising from a motor vehicle collision on October 31, 2008, in which two passengers died.

The defence brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings under s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that proceeding to trial would violate the accused's right to security of the person due to catastrophic physical injuries and severe psychological trauma.

The Crown opposed the application, citing the seriousness of the charges and public interest in prosecution.

The court granted the stay, finding that the accused suffered irreparable harm to her health and could not meaningfully participate in her own defence.

The accused was charged with "over 80" contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code following a domestic dispute call.

Police officers attended the residence, detected alcohol on the accused's breath while he was operating a snow plow on his private property, but delayed making an approved screening device demand by approximately 12 minutes.

The court found breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter due to the failure to make the breath demand "forthwith" as required by section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

Additionally, the Crown failed to establish that the breath tests were administered "as soon as practicable" as required by section 258(1)(c).

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with driving over 80 following an encounter with police in a shopping centre parking lot at approximately 12:45 am.

The defence challenged the constitutionality of the detention and the legality of the procedures that followed, arguing that the defendant was subjected to arbitrary detention in violation of section 9 of the Charter and that the breath testing was unreasonable under section 8.

The court found that the defendant was not detained at the initial moment of police contact, or alternatively, that any detention was grounded in reasonable suspicion and therefore not arbitrary.

The court also held that even if arbitrary detention had occurred, it would be authorized by the common law.

The defendant was found guilty as charged.

A trial concerning child support obligations for four children.

The applicant sought to impute income of $50,000 per annum to the respondent father and requested support retroactive to the application date, along with contributions to special expenses.

The respondent sought support based on $20,000 annual income on an ongoing basis only and opposed special expense contributions.

The court found the respondent's income disclosures unreliable and imputed income of $35,000 per annum based on his capacity to earn as an experienced roofer.

The court rejected the claim for special expenses given the respondent's limited means and the number of children requiring support.

A support order was issued with arrears repayment provisions.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking retroactive adjustment of child support based on deductibility of motor vehicle expenses.

The applicant opposed and brought a cross-motion seeking increased child support based on undeclared rental income, fixed contributions to section 7 expenses, spousal support, and enforcement of health insurance provisions.

The court found the respondent entitled to deduct motor vehicle expenses from income effective January 1, 2013 (not retroactively to 2009), and ordered inclusion of net rental income in the respondent's income for child support purposes effective January 1, 2013.

The court dismissed claims for retroactive rental income inclusion, section 7 expense contributions lacking proper consent, spousal support due to insufficient evidence of material change in circumstances, and the health insurance enforcement claim.

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

The accused was found sleeping in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle in a parking lot.

The Crown relied on the presumption in section 258(1)(a) that an accused found in the driver's seat is presumed to have care or control unless they satisfy the court they did not intend to drive.

The accused testified he deliberately pulled over after realizing he was too impaired and fatigued to continue driving, and intended to wait for his girlfriend to pick him up.

The trial judge found the accused credible and determined he had rebutted the presumption.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a realistic risk the accused would change his mind and drive.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.