Okechukwu Benjamin Vincents

The accused, a police constable, was charged with entering a dwelling house without lawful excuse and with intent to commit an indictable offence (criminal harassment) under s. 349(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the accused did not have a lawful excuse to enter the complainant's residence, given the clear termination of their relationship and his deceptive conduct to gain entry.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite intent to commit an indictable offence *at the point of entry*, as particularized in the information.

The accused's intent to harass was found to have formed *after* entry, when he decided to unlock a door for future access.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

The mother (O.P.) appealed a summary judgment decision that placed her children in extended society care for adoption planning with discretionary access.

The motion judge had applied an incorrect summary judgment test.

The appellate court, applying the correct legal framework under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA), found no palpable and overriding errors in the factual findings regarding parental neglect, lack of insight, and failure to follow recommendations.

The court affirmed that extended society care was in the children's best interests, considering their stability with the kin caregiver and their mature understanding of their needs versus their wishes.

The appeal was dismissed.

An appeal from an Ontario Review Board disposition regarding a detention order for the appellant.

The appellant challenged two aspects of the Board's decision: (1) whether the Board erred in making a detention order rather than granting some form of discharge, and (2) whether the Board erred in not including a term allowing the appellant to live in community accommodation approved by the hospital.

The Court of Appeal upheld the detention order but found the Board had misapprehended the hospital's evidence regarding a community living provision and failed to consider that evidence.

The appeal was allowed to the extent of inserting a clause permitting community living in hospital-approved accommodation into the detention order.

This is an appeal from a Superior Court decision affirming a trial court order making two children Crown wards without access following the death of a third child in the parents' care from complications of vitamin D deficiency and malnutrition.

The appellants challenged the Crown wardship order on multiple grounds, including ineffective assistance of counsel, abuse of process, and the trial judge's findings regarding the children's need for protection.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence to support the trial judge's findings that both children were in need of protection and that Crown wardship without access was in their best interests.

A Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking statutory and protection findings under the Child and Family Services Act, and an order for Crown wardship of a child apprehended at birth.

The respondent parents had previously been convicted of manslaughter in the death of another child due to malnutrition and failure to provide necessaries of life.

Two other children had been made Crown wards without access.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial regarding whether the child was in need of protection and the appropriate disposition, despite the serious history of parental neglect and the parents' lack of demonstrated change.

A ten-day family law trial addressing custody, access, and child support for three children.

The father sought joint custody, specified access, and no child support obligation while in school.

The mother sought sole custody, supervised access, and retroactive child support from the date of separation.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, established regular weekend access for the father in Toronto, and imputed income of $30,000 to the father for child support purposes, ordering $591 per month retroactive to August 2008.

The court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by not paying support and taking the position he had no obligation while in school.

The court also imposed restrictions on future litigation and criticized the conduct of both parties and their counsel during the trial.