Court of Justice

A custody and relocation dispute involving a three-year-old child.

The applicant mother sought permission to relocate to Alberta with the child to join her current partner, while the respondent father sought sole custody or, alternatively, a restraint on relocation.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother and permitted relocation to Alberta, finding that the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth, maintained a strong bond with the child, and had legitimate reasons for the move.

The father's involvement had been limited and sporadic, and his conduct was characterized by immaturity and lack of child focus.

Child support arrears were addressed and ongoing support was set at the guideline amount.

A custody and access trial involving two children where the applicant sought sole custody or joint custody with final decision-making authority, while the respondent sought sole custody.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent, finding that the applicant lacked the ability to cooperate with the respondent as a co-parent, had made numerous unfounded complaints to child protective authorities, and had emotionally abused the children through constant criticism of their mother.

The respondent demonstrated superior parenting ability, financial stability, and commitment to the children's education and welfare.

The applicant was granted alternate weekend access with strict conditions regarding punctuality for access exchanges.

The applicant father sought joint custody and access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and child support.

During the trial, the mother relocated to Alberta with the child to secure better employment and family support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding the parties were unable to communicate effectively and the mother had been the primary caregiver since birth.

The court permitted the mother's relocation to Alberta, finding it was in the child's best interests, and ordered a phased-in access schedule for the father.

The father was also ordered to pay his proportionate share of section 7 child care expenses.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant testified that she awoke to find the accused engaged in sexual activity with her while she was asleep in her bedroom.

The accused claimed the complainant was kissing him back and that he believed she had consented.

The court found that the complainant did not consent as she was incapable of consenting while asleep, and that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The court rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, finding no air of reality to the defence given the circumstances and the accused's self-induced intoxication.

A family law matter involving custody, access, and mobility of a young child born in 2010.

The applicant sought custody, increased access, and DNA testing to establish paternity.

The respondent sought sole custody and child support.

The parties had an on-and-off relationship and were unable to communicate effectively.

The respondent relocated to Alberta with the child without notice during the proceedings.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent, permitted the relocation to Alberta, and established a phased access schedule for the applicant involving visits to Edmonton and visits when the respondent returns to Ontario.

A numbered company operating as an entertainment establishment/nightclub was charged with operating without the required municipal license under the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that its right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed.

The Crown opposed the motion.

The court found that the total delay of 17 months, comprising 12 months of Crown and institutional delay, exceeded the acceptable threshold for a routine Part III provincial offence.

The court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings.

The offender was convicted after trial of aggravated assault and three counts of breach of probation arising from an unprovoked and vicious beating of a victim in February 2011, which resulted in severe traumatic brain injury and permanent cognitive and physical impairment.

The offender also pleaded guilty to common assault and two counts of breach of probation for assaulting another inmate while in custody in May 2011.

The sentencing court imposed a custodial sentence balancing denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation, with particular consideration given to the offender's Aboriginal status, youth, and background trauma, while recognizing the serious nature of the violent offences and the significant harm inflicted on the victims.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand to provide breath samples into an approved screening device.

The court considered two issues: whether the demand was made "forthwith" as required by the Criminal Code, and whether the officer had reasonable suspicion that the accused had alcohol in his body.

The court found that while the officer detected an odour of alcohol on the accused's breath and the accused admitted to consuming one beer hours earlier, the officer's subjective state of mind did not meet the reasonable suspicion standard.

The officer appeared to be seeking to determine whether the accused had any alcohol in his system to contravene the conditions of his G2 driver's licence, rather than acting on a pre-existing reasonable suspicion.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to kill and burn down a house following a confrontation with his landlord over a Rent Tribunal Order requiring him to pay outstanding rent.

The Crown alleged the accused threatened to kill the landlord and burn down the house.

The defence called evidence from the accused's father and girlfriend denying the threats were made.

The court found the Crown witnesses credible but harboured reasonable doubt about whether the threats were actually uttered, particularly given the landlord's failure to mention the serious threats (death and arson) to the 911 operator immediately after the alleged incident, combined with the landlord's strong motive to evict the accused.

The accused was acquitted.

Two defendants jointly charged with assault causing bodily harm brought separate applications under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings based on breach of their right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The offence occurred on April 18, 2010, and the application was heard on February 14, 2012, representing over 20 months of delay.

The court found approximately 12 months of unjustified delay after accounting for neutral time and inherent case requirements.

The delay was primarily attributable to the crown's failure to recognize that an essential witness required a Punjabi interpreter, leading to the adjournment of the first trial date set for May 19, 2011.

The court granted the applications and entered a stay of proceedings for both defendants.

In a sexual assault prosecution, the Crown sought to present its case through the complainant's earlier-recorded statements (911 calls and a police interview) because the complainant was absent from trial and unwilling to attend.

The court considered whether these hearsay statements could be admitted under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, which requires both necessity and reliability.

While the court found the necessity criterion marginally satisfied based on reasonable diligent efforts to locate the complainant, it rejected the application on reliability grounds.

The court found that the circumstances surrounding the statements, combined with the absence of any opportunity for cross-examination, created identifiable dangers that were not sufficiently overcome by confirmatory evidence.

The court emphasized that the live issues of consent and use of force could be significantly affected by cross-examination, and that the evidence could not be deemed inherently trustworthy.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery contrary to s. 343(b) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether a conditional sentence was available given that the offence involved the use of violence.

The Crown argued the offence constituted a serious personal injury offence, precluding a conditional sentence.

The court found that the accused's intentional application of force during the robbery—grabbing the deposit bag and causing both men to fall to the ground—met the definition of a serious personal injury offence under s. 752.

Accordingly, a conditional sentence was not available.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of nine months followed by two years probation, with credit for 36 days of pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further sentence of seven months and 24 days.

A ruling on a voir dire regarding the admissibility of hearsay statements made by a deceased complainant in a youth criminal justice case.

The accused, a young person, was charged with robbery and assault causing bodily harm.

The Crown sought to admit four statements made by the deceased complainant describing the robbery and identifying the accused.

The court applied the principled approach to hearsay, finding that all four statements met the threshold test for reliability based on factors including spontaneity, contemporaneity, specificity, and the declarant's intelligence and motive.

The court rejected arguments that the statements should be excluded based on prejudicial effect or concerns about eyewitness identification reliability, finding that probative value outweighed prejudice and that identification concerns affected weight rather than admissibility.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of mischief over $5,000 committed during the G20 summit in Toronto in June 2010.

The Crown sought a jail sentence of six to nine months followed by probation, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of 12 to 15 months with house arrest.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence of imprisonment (6 months on each count, consecutive) followed by 18 months of probation, balancing the objectives of denunciation and deterrence with the offender's status as a youthful first offender and his demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

A motion by the respondent mother for disclosure of all records relating to the child from the Children's Aid Society, the child's psychiatrist, a counselling agency, and the family doctor.

The applicant society initially opposed disclosure of third-party records without consent, but the court found that the mother was entitled to full disclosure of society records including third-party records in its possession.

The court also ordered disclosure of non-party records held by the psychiatrist, family doctor, and counselling agency, subject to privilege claims and restrictions on use.

The court granted the mother's motion with modifications, recognizing the paramount importance of disclosure in child protection proceedings while protecting the child's private therapeutic communications.

The accused, a psychological associate, was charged with three counts of fraud for allegedly misleading clients by using the title 'Doctor' and failing to explicitly identify himself as a psychological associate rather than a psychologist.

The clients had retained him for counseling and child custody assessments.

The court found that while the accused's use of the title 'Doctor' constituted a fraudulent act, the Crown failed to prove that this misrepresentation caused any financial deprivation or risk of loss to the complainants, as they likely would have retained him regardless of his specific licensing status.

Furthermore, the court found a reasonable doubt regarding whether the accused had the requisite mens rea for fraud.

The charges were dismissed.