Court of Justice

The defendant was charged with assaulting the complainant on three occasions in November 2011 and March 2012.

The third count was dismissed on consent.

The trial involved conflicting accounts of two incidents: one on November 22, 2011 involving an alleged slap, and another on November 23, 2011 involving alleged grabbing and striking.

The complainant testified the defendant used threats regarding her immigration sponsorship to control her.

The defendant denied the assaults and claimed the complainant initiated physical contact.

The court found the Crown had not discharged its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on both remaining counts.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of physical harm.

The mother consented to the finding through an agreed statement of facts.

The father contested the application.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the children were at risk of physical harm while in the father's care, including: the father's misuse and abuse of prescription medications (particularly oxycodone), his involvement in a dangerous driving incident while impaired by drugs with the children in the vehicle, his pattern of "doctor shopping" to obtain controlled substances, and his physical and verbal abuse of the mother in the presence of the children.

The court made a finding that the children were in need of protection and ordered a parenting capacity assessment to proceed.

An appeal of a destruction order issued against a dog that had bitten two children in the face, causing catastrophic injuries including near loss of an eye and severe facial lacerations.

The appellant consented to the destruction order at the original hearing but subsequently appealed on multiple grounds, including claims of incompetent counsel, procedural unfairness, and that his consent was invalid due to confusion.

The appellant also presented expert reports post-appeal suggesting the dog could be rehabilitated.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the consent was informed, voluntary, and unequivocal, and rejecting the expert reports as inadmissible hearsay presented without proper notice to the Crown.

A motion to change custody and parenting arrangements concerning a six-year-old child, Zara Karima Demirdache.

The father sought to transfer the child from a French-language public school (École élémentaire Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau) to either a French Immersion program or an English-language public school, citing his inability to communicate in French and concerns about exclusion from the child's education.

The mother opposed the transfer, seeking to maintain the child's enrollment at the French school.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the child was thriving at the French school, had developed strong friendships, was making excellent academic progress, and that the father had successfully maintained meaningful involvement in the child's education despite the language barrier.

The court ordered the child to remain at the French school for the 2013-2014 academic year and imposed conditions requiring the mother to provide translations of report cards and advance notice of school events.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and Over 80 following a motor vehicle stop in Milton on May 26, 2012.

The defence brought a section 8 Charter application challenging whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving and demand breath samples.

The court found that the arresting officer's grounds were insufficient, relying on inconsistent and unreliable evidence from the officers regarding driving concerns.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence and dismissed both charges, emphasizing the importance of police note-taking and the proper role of coach officers in investigations.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown filed a Notice of Application for Increased Penalty, which would have mandated a minimum four-month custodial sentence.

The court considered whether the Crown's exercise of discretion in filing the Notice violated Section 7 of the Charter by failing to properly consider Gladue principles applicable to Aboriginal offenders.

The court found that the Crown's decision to file the Notice before receiving the Gladue report constituted a violation of Section 7 of the Charter, as it did not demonstrate proper consideration of the offender's unique circumstances as an Aboriginal person.

The Notice was set aside.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, including a curfew, substance abuse treatment, and participation in rehabilitative programming, along with a 12-month probation order and a three-year driving prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to common assault and sexual assault.

The Crown proceeded summarily, enabling the defence to seek a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 30 months of probation.

The sentencing decision balanced denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation, considering the offender's significant cognitive limitations, developmental disabilities, mental health issues, and a comprehensive support plan through St. Leonard's Community Services.

The court found this to be an exceptional case warranting a conditional sentence despite the serious nature of the offences.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in his system.

The trial judge acquitted on the impaired charge but reserved judgment on the over 80 charge due to a defence argument regarding the failure of the breath technician to perform a self-test on the Intoxilyzer 8000C machine.

The court examined whether deviation from the Centre of Forensic Science training manual recommendations regarding self-tests created reasonable doubt about the machine's proper operation.

The court found that the machine's internal self-diagnostic tests were sufficient to establish proper working order and that the failure to perform a manual self-test did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on the over 80 charge.

The applicant father sought sole custody of a child born in April 2005, initially seeking joint custody with status quo access but changing his position at trial.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and child support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the father's evidence was unreliable and evasive, with significant concerns about his parenting choices including alcohol use, exposure to violent video games, allowing the child to handle firearms, and inadequate supervision.

The mother, while having some issues with conflict management, demonstrated a stronger commitment to the child's welfare and maintained a stable primary caregiving relationship.

The court also imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on deliberate underemployment and ordered arrears and ongoing support.

The father applied for sole custody of the parties' child, while the mother cross-applied for sole custody and child support.

The court found the father's evidence unreliable, noting his history of conflict, inappropriate parenting choices, and deliberate underemployment.

The court rejected the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation to limit the mother's access, finding it unsupported by the evidence and detrimental to the child's relationship with his half-sister.

The mother was awarded sole custody, and the father was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $52,000 per year, along with retroactive arrears.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving a motor vehicle without a license and without a valid validation sticker on the license plate.

The appellant raised arguments based on religious freedom, freedom of movement and association, and various constitutional and international human rights instruments.

The trial Justice of the Peace found the appellant lacked sincere religious belief and convicted him.

On appeal, the court found the Justice of the Peace erred in law by applying an incorrect three-part test for assessing sincerity of religious belief and by failing to provide meaningful reasons addressing the appellant's Charter arguments.

However, the court upheld the conviction, finding that even if the appellant had sincere religious beliefs, regulation of highway driving is a justifiable limit on Charter rights under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appeal was dismissed.

At a preliminary inquiry, the accused was charged with 57 counts involving break and enter, theft, and assault.

Several counts were stayed or withdrawn by the Crown.

The justice found sufficient evidence to commit the accused to stand trial on 25 counts, including break and enter, theft, assault causing bodily harm, and conspiracy.

The justice declined to commit on 23 counts due to insufficient evidence.

Additional counts were added for break and enter to Fincham Plaza mall, conspiracy to commit break and enter and theft, and counselling to commit theft in relation to stolen vehicles.

The father brought a motion for contempt alleging that the mother breached a June 22, 2011 final order by cancelling approximately 30 weekend access visits without good or valid reason, refusing to make up missed weekends, and refusing to provide report cards and authorization for direct contact with schools and medical professionals.

The mother brought a cross-motion seeking to transfer the matter to Ottawa, reduce access to once per month, obtain child support disclosure, and obtain permission to travel to Poland with the children.

The court found the mother in contempt of the access order, finding that while some reasons for cancellation were legitimate, most were not, and that the mother had unilaterally allowed her influence regarding the children's activities to override her obligation to comply with the clear terms of the order.

The penalty phase was adjourned to January 2014 to allow the mother an opportunity to purge the contempt.

A costs decision in a family law matter involving child support and custody disputes.

The mother sought child support from the father in 2009, but the father failed to provide financial disclosure and instead brought multiple motions to change custody, access, and contempt motions against the mother.

The father's counsel repeatedly failed to appear in court as directed.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable throughout the litigation and awarded the mother costs of $9,000 payable at $200 per month, plus ordered the father's counsel to pay $910 in costs for failing to appear prepared for trial on two consecutive days.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault committed against three separate victims between 2006 and 2010.

The Crown sought a dangerous offender designation with an indeterminate sentence or, alternatively, a determinate sentence of 10-12 years with a 10-year long-term offender supervision order.

The court rejected the dangerous offender designation but found the accused met the criteria for long-term offender status.

The court imposed an 11-year global sentence (10 months, 3 years consecutive, and 3 years consecutive) with credit for pre-sentence custody resulting in 6 years and 10 months to be served, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, section 161 order, and SOIRA registration.

The defendant was convicted of multiple counts of assault with a weapon, assault, and threatening following a four-day trial.

The sentencing decision addresses a pattern of domestic violence spanning several years, including an incident on May 9, 2011, where the defendant threw boiling water on his spouse and infant child.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years of probation, with ancillary orders including DNA sampling and weapons prohibition.

The decision emphasizes denunciation and specific deterrence in the context of domestic violence, while considering the defendant's prior brain injury and extensive criminal history of violence.

The accused, an employer in his 60s, was charged with three counts of sexual assault against a vulnerable 29-year-old female employee with a learning disability.

The employee was placed in the position through a supported employment program.

The Crown alleged three separate incidents of unwanted sexual touching in the workplace on December 1, 2011.

The accused claimed consent and raised a defence of mistaken belief in consent.

The court found that the accused was in a position of trust, power, and authority over the complainant, rendering any purported consent invalid.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as fabricated and accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts of sexual assault.