ONCJ 2017

The applicant mother sought temporary child and spousal support from the respondent father.

The parties had a brief relationship lasting approximately 11 months (January to November 2014), cohabited for three months, and had a daughter born in October 2014.

The father claimed to have no income due to injuries and depression from multiple car accidents, while the mother sought to impute income of $500,000 annually based on bank deposits, lifestyle, and casino activity.

The court found the father's evidence regarding his financial situation to be dishonest and unreliable, imputed annual income of $150,000, and ordered child support of $1,263 per month commencing January 1, 2016.

The mother's claim for spousal support was dismissed as she failed to establish that the parties cohabited in a relationship of some permanence as required by the Family Law Act.

A protection application concerning two young twins (M.G. and S.G., born 2014) apprehended in January 2015 following the mother's physical abuse of her older children.

The mother sought return of the younger twins to her care subject to supervision.

The society sought Crown wardship without access for adoption purposes.

The court found that while the mother had committed serious physical abuse against her older children, she had made meaningful progress through extensive counselling and parenting programs over 26 months in care.

The court determined that the risks had been sufficiently mitigated to permit return to the mother's care subject to a strict 12-month supervision order, following a structured two-month reintegration period.

The decision emphasizes the importance of assessing current risk levels rather than relying solely on past conduct, the necessity of meaningful engagement with service providers, and the principle of least disruptive intervention consistent with child protection.

The Crown sought to adduce similar act evidence based on video surveillance footage showing the defendant standing in close proximity to two unknown women in a grocery store, allegedly engaging in conduct similar to the charged sexual assault of the complainant.

The defendant was charged with sexually assaulting a woman at a checkout counter by touching her buttocks three times in a deliberate manner.

The Crown argued that two other incidents captured on video—one occurring minutes before and one after the alleged assault—demonstrated a pattern of similar groping conduct.

The defence opposed admission, arguing the evidence was insufficiently similar and that the video footage was ambiguous and incapable of proving the alleged similar acts.

The court dismissed the Crown's application, finding that neither incident shown on video demonstrated striking similarity to the charged conduct and that the evidence was not capable of proving the alleged similar acts to the requisite degree of certainty.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operation with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg/100 mL following a traffic stop for speeding and erratic driving.

The trial judge found that police breached the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to counsel by failing to provide meaningful access to legal advice in Portuguese, despite knowing the accused had limited English proficiency and had specifically requested a Portuguese-speaking lawyer.

The breath test evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) as a remedy for this serious breach.

However, the trial judge found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate the vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on the totality of the driving evidence, resulting in a conviction on the impaired operation charge and dismissal of the Over 80 charge.

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle carelessly contrary to Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from a fatal collision on June 11, 2015, between the accused's vehicle and a mobility scooter operated by the deceased on a residential street in Blenheim.

The Crown's case relied on the assertion that the deceased was visible on the roadway for six seconds prior to impact and that the accused's failure to see or take evasive action demonstrated careless driving.

The Defence challenged the Crown's reconstruction evidence, particularly the assumption of an unobstructed view.

The Court found the accused not guilty, determining that the Crown had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of careless driving and pleaded guilty to driving while licence suspended.

On April 29, 2015, the accused drove a van with six passengers on Highway 3 in Leamington when a bee entered the driver's window.

The accused became distracted by the bee and failed to maintain attention on the road despite warnings from passengers.

This resulted in multiple overcorrections, the van rolling over, and two passengers being fatally injured.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 days incarceration, a two-year driving prohibition, and a $1,000 fine.

The court found that the accused's status as both never-licenced and suspended made non-custodial sanctions ineffective as deterrents.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol following a roadside stop and arrest.

The accused applied to exclude breath sample evidence on the grounds that the arresting officer failed to advise her of her right to counsel immediately upon arrest, in violation of s. 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown conceded the Charter breach.

The court found the breach serious due to systemic failures by the Peel Regional Police to comply with the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Suberu, which established that "without delay" means "immediately." Despite the reliability of the evidence and the accused's decision not to contact counsel, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter to maintain the repute of the administration of justice.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant applied for a mistrial after the Crown cross-examined him regarding three previous drinking and driving charges during trial on an "Over 80" charge.

The Crown's stated purpose was to establish the defendant's familiarity with the criminal justice system in response to his Charter voir dire evidence regarding his understanding of the right to counsel.

The court found that while the Crown did not act with improper purpose, the questions were highly prejudicial with minimal probative value.

The court declared a mistrial, finding that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed such that a fully informed observer could reasonably conclude the trial was unfair.

The accused was charged with Over 80 following a drinking and driving investigation.

The officer's approved screening device malfunctioned, resulting in an eight-minute delay while a second device was obtained.

During this delay, the accused was placed in the police car and subjected to a pat-down search.

The accused was arrested and advised of his right to counsel six minutes later.

The defence raised six Charter breaches.

The court found that the ASD demand and test were conducted forthwith despite the delay caused by device malfunction.

The court found breaches of sections 8 and 9 regarding the detention in the police car and search, and a technical breach of section 10(b) regarding the delay in right to counsel advice.

However, applying the section 24(2) test from R v Grant, the court found that admission of the breath test evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the minor impact of the breaches on the accused's Charter-protected interests and society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was found guilty.

The paternal grandparents sought custody of a four-year-old child who had lived with a non-family member caregiver since three months of age.

The child's parents were unable or unwilling to provide care.

The grandparents sought to unite the child with her two brothers, who were already in their custody, and to raise her within their Muslim faith and cultural traditions.

The non-family caregiver sought to maintain custody, emphasizing the child's four years of continuous, stable care and attachment.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under the Child and Family Services Act and determined that maintaining the status quo with the non-family caregiver was in the child's best interests, while providing generous access to the grandparents.

The defendant was charged with four offences arising from driving a red Mustang at 218 km/h in a 100 km/h zone on Highway 401 while fleeing from individuals in a green Audi: performing a stunt, racing, driving with a suspended licence, and operating a motor vehicle with open liquor readily available.

The defendant claimed the defence of necessity, asserting he feared the occupants of the Audi would shoot him and his cousin.

The court found all elements of the offences proven beyond a reasonable doubt but rejected the necessity defence on a modified objective standard, finding reasonable legal alternatives were available.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to preclude dual convictions for performing a stunt and racing, staying the racing charge.

The defendant was convicted of performing a stunt, driving with a suspended licence, and operating a motor vehicle with open liquor.

This is a costs endorsement following a two-day trial on child support obligations.

The applicant (mother) sought costs of $25,305 following a successful trial where she obtained child support of $2,726 per month, arrears of $56,227, and spousal support of $550 per month.

The respondent (father) argued the costs claim was excessive.

The court found the mother was the successful party and entitled to costs.

The mother had made a settlement offer on December 15, 2016, which was more favourable to her than the final order, triggering the presumptive costs consequences under subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded costs of $15,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, finding this amount fair and reasonable despite the mother's claim being higher, after considering the complexity of the issues, the reasonableness of the parties' behaviour, the lawyer's rates, and the time spent on the case.

The applicant brought a motion under sections 15 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for impaired driving and over 80 operation charges.

The applicant, who has multiple disabilities including visual impairment (alternating exotropia), ADHD, and significant scarring from chemical burns, alleged that state actors (Crown, court clerks, accessibility coordinator, and police) failed to provide timely and independent disability accommodation, resulting in differential treatment contrary to section 15.

The applicant argued that inadequate accommodation led to his failure to appear on two occasions, resulting in unnecessary strip searches.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the conduct of state actors is subject to Charter scrutiny under Eldridge, the applicant failed to establish a factual foundation for a section 15 breach.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of charges for delay.

The charges comprised two separate series: firearms and drug offences laid on January 21 and 26, 2015, and conspiracy charges laid on November 19, 2015.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 237, which introduced presumptive ceilings for trial delay.

The court found that the Crown's decision to consolidate the separate charges and defendants into a single proceeding, combined with inadequate disclosure management and lack of urgency, resulted in unreasonable delay for the initial charges.

The court stayed 32 charges related to the firearms and drug offences but dismissed the application regarding the conspiracy charge, which fell just below the presumptive ceiling.

A trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for a two-year-old child born to parties who married in Egypt and subsequently immigrated to Canada.

The parties resolved custody (awarded to mother), communication terms, government documentation access, and child support during trial.

The court determined four remaining contested issues: whether the mother could relocate the child's primary residence outside Ontario, travel to non-Hague Convention countries, travel outside Canada in emergencies, and whether a police enforcement order should be made.

The court found the mother credible and reliable, rejected the father's concerns about her trustworthiness, and granted the mother flexibility to relocate within Canada with notice, travel internationally for vacation purposes, and travel in emergencies without prior notice.

The court declined to issue a police enforcement order.

The defendant was charged with operating a slow moving vehicle over 40 kilometres per hour contrary to Section 76(6.1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was observed driving a pickup truck at 100 kilometres per hour while towing an implement of husbandry without a slow moving vehicle sign.

The defendant argued that the statutory language required a slow moving vehicle sign to be attached for the speed restriction to apply.

The court rejected this interpretation, finding that the legislation creates two types of offences: one for vehicles with a slow moving sign and one for vehicles towing an implement of husbandry regardless of signage.

The court convicted the defendant and imposed a fine of $85 plus costs and surcharge.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired and with blood alcohol over 80 mg/100ml.

Police found the accused asleep behind the wheel in a shopping mall parking lot at 3:30 a.m.

The officer made a breath demand and obtained readings of 97 and 93 mg/100ml.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the breath demand, arguing the officer lacked both subjective and objective reasonable grounds.

The court found the officer's testimony regarding observations of impairment was unreliable and inconsistent with in-car video evidence and the breath technician's observations.

The court concluded neither the subjective nor objective component of the reasonable grounds standard was established, constituting a serious Charter breach.

The breath results were excluded under s.24(2) of the Charter, and both charges were dismissed.

The respondent brought a motion to change a prior custody and child support order, seeking increased access to his son and reduced child support obligations.

The applicant opposed the access changes and sought recalculation of child support based on the respondent's increased income and elimination of his support obligations for two children from a previous relationship.

The court found a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the access provisions but not the child support amount.

The court granted overnight weekend access and extended summer access to the respondent, while imputing income based on his historical earning capacity as a truck driver and reducing his child support obligations accordingly.

The appellants sought extension of time to appeal provincial offence convictions for a parking violation and a red light infraction.

This was the fourth application for extension of time.

The appellants had repeatedly failed to appear at trial dates, appeal dates, and subsequent proceedings.

Previous applications had been dismissed as abandoned, and a prior judge had ordered that no further applications be filed without judicial leave.

The appellants did not comply with this order.

The court found the repeated filings to be frivolous and an abuse of process, and dismissed both applications with an order prohibiting further applications without prior written leave from a judge.