Court of Justice

A motion for summary judgment brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking Crown wardship for two children (D.H. and P.H.) and a custody order under section 57.1 for a third child (A.W.).

The children had been apprehended following disclosures of physical abuse and neglect by their mother.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking placement with family members.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the Society's motion, making D.H. and P.H. Crown wards and granting custody of A.W. to her father.

The court emphasized that the paramount purpose of child protection legislation is the best interests of the child, not parental rights.

The applicant mother sought temporary custody of two children (ages 9 and 10), child support, and permission to relocate with the children to Florida to accept a nursing position.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought temporary custody or, alternatively, joint custody with weekend access.

The court granted temporary custody to the mother but dismissed her motion to relocate to Florida on a temporary basis, finding that genuine issues required a trial.

The court ordered the father to pay child support and granted him access on two out of every three weekends, with alternating weeks during summer.

A referral was made to the Office of the Children's Lawyer to obtain independent evidence regarding the children's views and preferences.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking findings that a child was in need of protection and requesting placement with the father under supervision.

The father brought a concurrent motion for custody.

The mother opposed both motions.

The court found that the child suffered emotional harm due to the mother's pattern of alienating the child from the father, withholding access contrary to court orders, coaching the child to make false abuse allegations, and failing to address the child's medical and developmental needs.

The court granted both motions, placing the child in the sole custody of the father with specified access to the mother, and terminated the father's child support obligation.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a 66-year-old vulnerable woman with a weapon in the maintenance room of an apartment building.

The assault involved forced fellatio, attempted anal penetration, forced crack cocaine use, and vaginal intercourse without protection.

The victim suffered severe physical injuries and devastating long-term psychological trauma including post-traumatic stress disorder.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years less 14 months pre-trial custody, resulting in a further 5 years and 4 months incarceration, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition, DNA order, and 20-year Sexual Offender Information Registration Act compliance.

The defendant was charged with making a right turn not in safety contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act following a fatal collision with a pedestrian at the intersection of Torbram Road and Walker Drive in Brampton on December 1, 2010.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including surveillance videos, GPS tracking data, expert identification of the vehicle, and the defendant's own admissions to establish that the defendant was operating the transport truck that struck and killed the pedestrian.

The defendant argued that the Crown had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the driver and that even if he was, he had exercised due diligence.

The court found that the Crown had proven the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt and that the defendant had failed to establish the defence of due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The defendant was convicted.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm (as an included offence to the original charge of aggravated assault) against a newborn child within the first 30 days of life.

The child sustained serious injuries including metaphyseal fractures to both femurs, fractures to the tibia, and multiple rib fractures requiring tremendous force to inflict.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months custody followed by 2 years probation, with conditions including anger management counselling, parenting programs, and restrictions on contact with the victim's mother.

The court balanced serious aggravating factors (abuse of a child and position of trust, severity of injuries) against mitigating factors (no criminal record, employment, positive support network, participation in rehabilitation programs).

A Charter motion challenging a trespass notice issued during an Occupy Ottawa demonstration at Confederation Park.

The applicant, who participated in the occupation for approximately 48 hours, was directed to vacate the park and charged with failing to comply with a trespass directive under the Trespass to Property Act.

The applicant contended that the directive infringed her rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that although the directive did infringe these rights, the infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The court applied the Furtherance of Values test and the Oakes test, concluding that the city's bylaws and regulations governing park use were constitutionally valid and that the trespass notice was appropriately issued to restore the park to its lawful function.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his newborn son, who sustained multiple serious fractures within the first 30 days of life.

The Crown sought 18 months of custody, while the defence proposed a non-custodial or intermittent sentence.

Emphasizing the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence in child abuse cases, the court sentenced the accused to 12 months in custody followed by 2 years of probation, noting his lack of a criminal record and positive prospects for rehabilitation.

The defendant, a director of a construction company, pleaded guilty to four counts of failing to take all reasonable care to ensure compliance with occupational health and safety regulations.

The charges arose from a catastrophic incident on December 24, 2009, when a suspended work platform collapsed during balcony repair work on two Toronto buildings, resulting in four deaths and one serious injury.

The defendant failed to ensure non-English-speaking workers received written safety instructions in their native languages, failed to maintain required training records, allowed defective equipment to be used without proper documentation, and failed to prevent overloading of the work platform.

The court imposed fines of $22,500 per count with a 25% victim fine surcharge, payable over 12 months.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment and uttering threats to cause death or injury to children, arising from an incident on March 25, 2011 during a custody transfer.

The Crown alleged that the accused made threatening statements to the complainant regarding her children after she refused to allow him to pick up their daughter at her home.

The court found the accused not guilty on both charges.

While the court accepted the complainant's credible testimony that the accused made the alleged statement, it found that the threat did not constitute a threat of bodily harm as defined in the Criminal Code, as there was insufficient proof of substantial interference with the psychological integrity of the children.

Additionally, the harassment charge failed because it required proof of repeated following on more than one occasion, and only a single incident of following was established.

Following the dismissal of an appeal regarding a municipal election compliance audit, the added parties (the candidates) sought costs against the appellant.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that she was a public interest litigant immune from costs, finding she continued to pursue abandoned and technical allegations on appeal.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, fixing them at $12,600 for the three represented candidates and $1,000 for the self-represented candidate.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of an appeal from a Compliance Audit Committee decision.

The appellant sought a compliance audit of campaign finances for four municipal candidates under the Municipal Elections Act.

The Committee dismissed the application, and the appellant appealed to the Ontario Court of Justice.

The appeal was dismissed.

The added parties (the four candidates) sought costs awards.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis, finding that the usual practice of awarding costs to successful parties should apply.

The court rejected arguments that the appellant was a public interest litigant and found the added parties' participation in the appeal was necessary to defend their reputations against public allegations.

A corporation engaged in construction work pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death following a swing stage collapse that killed four workers and seriously injured another.

The incident occurred when six workers and a site supervisor were on a swing stage with only two lifelines available, and three of the four deceased had marijuana in their systems.

The court imposed a fine of $200,000 plus a 15% victim fine surcharge of $30,000, considering the corporation's financial circumstances, prior good character, and the statutory factors for corporate sentencing under the Criminal Code.

A young person was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a consensual fist fight at a recreation centre.

The accused struck the complainant with an uppercut while holding him by the neck, causing the loss of two front teeth.

The court examined the law governing consent to street fights, particularly as it applies to young persons, and determined that consent could be vitiated on public policy grounds when bodily harm beyond the trivial is intended and caused.

The court found the accused guilty, holding that the facts met the test established in Jobidon and Paice, and that the circumstances fell within the core policy concerns underlying the law on consent to fights.

The young person accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following a consensual fist fight with another youth.

The fight resulted in the complainant losing two front teeth.

The court analyzed the law on consent in fist fights, applying the Supreme Court's decisions in Jobidon and Paice.

The court found that the accused intended to cause non-trivial bodily harm and did in fact cause such harm, thereby vitiating any consent to the fight.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused pleaded guilty to nine charges spanning multiple offences including assaults on her children and niece, assault causing bodily harm to an intimate partner, robbery, breach of bail conditions, and possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The accused had been in custody for approximately 292 days prior to sentencing.

The court imposed a global sentence of 17 months imprisonment concurrent with 13 months for assault causing bodily harm, with additional concurrent sentences for lesser offences, followed by 24 months probation with strict conditions.

The court applied Gladue principles in moderating the sentence while maintaining denunciation and deterrence.

The appellant appealed her conviction for failing to yield to traffic on a through highway under Section 136(1)(b) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The trial judge had classified the offence as one of absolute liability, rejecting the appellant's due diligence defence.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, holding that the offence is one of strict liability to which a due diligence defence applies.

The court applied the four-factor test from R. v. Sault Ste.

Marie, examining the regulatory pattern, subject matter, penalty, and precision of language.

The matter was remitted for a new trial.

The accused was charged with forcible confinement, threatening bodily harm, assault, and criminal harassment arising from events on March 20, 2011, involving his former romantic partner.

The Crown's case consisted primarily of the victim's testimony.

The assault charge was dismissed at the conclusion of the Crown's case for lack of prima facie case.

Following trial, the accused was acquitted on all remaining charges.

The court found reasonable doubt on the confinement charge regarding whether the victim's presence in the vehicle was unwilling, on the threat charge regarding whether the words conveyed a genuine threat in context, and on the harassment charge regarding whether the conduct caused the victim to reasonably fear for her safety.

The applicants sought a restraining order against the respondents, requesting that they be restrained from directly or indirectly contacting the applicants or their child, and from coming within 200 metres of the applicants, the child, or their residences, schools, or places of employment.

The applicants alleged a history of domestic violence, harassment, and inappropriate conduct.

The respondents sought dismissal of the application with costs.

The court found no objective factual basis for the applicants' fears, noting that allegations of abuse and assault had not been substantiated by authorities, and that the applicants' evidence lacked credibility.

The court dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The incident occurred on an access road behind businesses in London, Ontario.

The Crown alleged the accused drove at high speed, nearly struck a child, and then deliberately drove his vehicle towards an off-duty police officer.

The accused testified he drove at moderate speeds, did not intentionally drive at the officer, and that his vehicle may have swerved due to a pothole.

The court found credibility issues with the Crown witnesses and accepted that a reasonable doubt existed regarding the accused's intent and the manner of driving.

The charge was dismissed.