ONCJ 2020

The accused pleaded guilty to charges involving domestic violence, extortion, and transmission of intimate images of two separate women.

The court imposed an 18-month sentence with enhanced pre-trial custody credit accounting for harsh conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, including lockdown periods and COVID-19 pandemic conditions.

The accused received credit at 1.5 for Summers credit, 1.5 for lockdown conditions, and 0.5 for COVID-19 conditions, resulting in a net sentence of 69 days to serve.

Ancillary orders included a three-year probation term with conditions including no contact with victims, attendance for domestic violence counselling, and a DNA order.

The respondent father moved for an order transferring a family law matter from the Ontario Court of Justice to the Superior Court of Justice and for leave to bring an urgent motion regarding child access and division of proceeds from the sale of the former shared home.

The applicant mother sought to restrict in-person visits due to the child's medical vulnerability during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion as non-urgent and beyond jurisdiction.

The court found that the applicant's concerns regarding the child's medical condition were medically justified and that alternative arrangements through phone and video visits should be arranged pending the resolution of the pandemic.

The respondent father brought a motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for access to his newborn son.

The applicant mother brought a cross-motion for leave to proceed with an urgent motion for child support, a compliance order regarding criminal recognizance, and a restraining order preventing contact.

The court considered whether the motions met the test for urgency and determined that while there were serious issues, they did not meet the threshold for urgent motion relief at that time.

The court found that the issues could be appropriately addressed through an urgent case conference scheduled for April 27, 2020, which could proceed remotely.

A child protection application brought by Native Child and Family Services regarding a newborn exposed prenatally to fentanyl.

The child was apprehended at birth and placed in the care of the society.

The matter proceeded on an urgent basis during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the first hearing conducted on April 3, 2020, and the second on April 14, 2020.

The mother, residing at a shelter, participated by telephone conference.

The court granted a temporary without prejudice order placing the child in the society's care and custody, with access at the society's discretion.

The matter was adjourned to May 4, 2020 to allow the mother time to retain counsel, prepare her answer and plan of care, and to allow the society to further explore the mother's proposed plan to relocate to Newfoundland with the maternal grandmother.

The paternal grandparents sought an urgent motion to temporarily suspend face-to-face access between their grandchild and his mother during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The grandparents cited concerns about the child's asthma diagnosis, the mother's alleged failure to adhere to social distancing protocols, and the mother's other child's recent illness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that prima facie urgency had not been established.

The court held that COVID-19 concerns alone do not automatically warrant suspension of parenting time and that the party seeking to restrict access must provide specific evidence of the other party's failure to adhere to safety protocols.

The court emphasized the importance of children maintaining contact with both parents during the pandemic and encouraged the parties to communicate and cooperate on safety measures.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking return of her child to her care or alternatively to her care while residing with the paternal grandparents, following suspension of the Children's Aid Society's supervised access programs.

The child had been in Society care since September 2019 pursuant to an interim order made in November 2019.

The court found that while the mother's affidavit provided insufficient evidence, prima facie urgency was established by the complete suspension of face-to-face access with a very young child.

The court dismissed the motion for return to joint parental care but directed the mother to provide detailed evidence of an alternative plan, including specific COVID-19 safety measures, by April 30, 2020, with the Society to respond by May 15, 2020.

The defendant was charged with exceed 80 (driving with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood) on December 17, 2017.

The defence raised Charter arguments alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), and challenged the constitutional validity of the presumption of identity in transitional cases when paired with the new presumption of accuracy.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and the constitutional challenge, finding no violations of the defendant's rights and that the presumptions of identity and accuracy operate on parallel tracks without conflict in transitional cases.

The defendant was charged with seven serious offences involving child exploitation, including luring for sexual purposes, luring to create child pornography, extortion, and possession and access of child pornography.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds at a judicial interim release hearing.

The court found that the Crown had not met its onus for detention on either ground.

The defendant was released on conditions including house arrest with three named sureties, strict internet restrictions, and no unsupervised contact with minors.

The court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as one relevant factor but emphasized that the release was not premised solely on pandemic concerns.

Two urgent COVID-19 access motions were brought in an ongoing high-conflict custody and access proceeding.

The father sought enforcement of court-ordered access and makeup time after the mother unilaterally suspended access on March 27, 2020, citing COVID-19 concerns.

The mother sought to suspend all in-person access pending further court order, offering only remote contact.

The court found the father's motion met the urgency threshold and determined that the mother failed to provide specific evidence that the father's actions were inconsistent with COVID-19 protocols.

The court ordered that the existing access arrangement continue with modifications, suspending only the midweek Wednesday access and granting makeup access to compensate for the unjustified denial.

The mother brought an urgent motion seeking in-person access to her infant son, who was placed in the care of the maternal grandparents following serious non-accidental injuries sustained while in parental care.

The child was hospitalized with traumatic brain injuries, including subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and bruising.

The society opposed the motion, seeking to maintain virtual-only access due to COVID-19 pandemic concerns, particularly given the child's medical vulnerability.

The court dismissed the mother's motion and upheld the suspension of in-person access, finding that the child's fragile medical condition and the evolving pandemic risks outweighed the benefits of face-to-face contact at that time.

The offender pleaded guilty to ten Criminal Code offences, three Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences, and one Highway Traffic Act offence.

The offences consisted primarily of property crimes committed during a 24-hour spree, including theft of a motor vehicle, break and enter, possession of stolen property, and possession of drugs.

The Crown sought 15 months incarceration less pre-sentence custody credit, while the defence sought time served plus probation.

The court imposed a sentence of time served (approximately 218 days including enhanced credit) followed by a three-year probation period, considering the offender's lack of violent history, guilty pleas, remorse, and the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and unlawfully being in a dwelling house arising from an incident where he struck a victim in the head in the victim's home, causing unconsciousness, laceration, and concussion.

The offender also pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to appear in court and three counts relating to possession of brass knuckles while subject to weapons prohibition orders.

The court imposed a sentence of eight months' incarceration for the assault (less five months pre-sentence custody credit), resulting in three additional months of custody, concurrent three months for unlawful dwelling, and 30 days consecutive for weapons possession.

The court also imposed three years' probation with protective conditions for the victim.

The sentencing was influenced by COVID-19 pandemic considerations, the offender's prior violent criminal record, and his personal trauma from his father's suicide.

The Public Prosecution Service of Canada applied for forfeiture of cash and property seized during the execution of a search warrant at an illegal marijuana dispensary located at 1111-A Finch Avenue West in Toronto.

The accused, Zoran Vujisic, pleaded guilty to trafficking in marijuana and other offences and relinquished his interest in the seized property.

A third party, Sina Majidi, the building owner and property manager, claimed ownership of cash found in two safes located in a first-floor storage unit.

The court found that the cash was offence-related property connected to the dispensary operation through a concealed pulley system.

The court rejected Majidi's claim of lawful ownership, finding his evidence not credible and establishing his complicity in the illegal operation.

The court ordered forfeiture of all seized property and cash.

The respondent father brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding custody and access arrangements for two children.

The mother had ceased compliance with a Final Court Order following her criminal charge for assault and was living with an individual with a history of sexual assault convictions.

The Children's Aid Society was investigating.

The parties reached a temporary without prejudice agreement for alternating weekly custody during the school closure period, with the mother retaining primary residence upon school resumption.

The arrangement included supervised exchanges and conditions regarding contact with the individual in question.

A motion review concerning custody and access of a child following a trial judgment.

The respondent father refused to comply with the trial judge's custody order awarding custody to the applicant mother and attempted to invoke a prior interim order instead.

The respondent failed to return the child on the scheduled date and sent a cease-and-desist letter asserting the interim order remained valid.

The applicant brought an emergency motion for the child's return.

The court suspended all in-person access pending further order, finding the respondent ungovernable by law and a serious risk to the child's wellbeing.

Limited phone or video access was permitted at the applicant's discretion.

The matter was adjourned for review after the COVID-19 emergency.

Costs were awarded to the applicant.

The claimant, residing in Minnesota, brought an application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act seeking child support for three children from the respondent, who resides in Ontario.

The respondent did not file any responding materials or attend the hearing.

The court, considering the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions and the respondent's non-compliance with procedural requirements, adjourned the hearing and made a temporary child support order.

The court imputed the respondent's annual income at $25,000 (a conservative estimate given pandemic impacts on taxi drivers) and ordered temporary monthly child support of $517 (Canadian) retroactive to February 1, 2020, pending a final hearing.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking directions from the court regarding access to his eight-year-old son during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The father alleged that the mother had denied him access for extensive periods, with the most recent denial occurring since January 2, 2020.

The father sought either a motion or urgent case conference to address the matter.

The court found that while the matter was important, it did not meet the urgency threshold established by the Chief Justice's directive limiting court operations to urgent and emergency matters during the health crisis.

The court emphasized that the denial of access predated the pandemic and that there was no existing court order or agreement in place.

The motion was denied, and the matter was scheduled to proceed as a case conference in June or July 2020.

A temporary care and custody motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding two young children: a five-year-old autistic boy and an eight-month-old infant.

The society sought placement of both children in its care, citing multiple protection concerns including the mother's apparent mental health issues, failure to meet the children's medical and nutritional needs, inadequate supervision resulting in injuries, exposure to domestic violence, and failure to ensure the older child's school attendance and special needs support.

The father faced criminal charges for assault and was subject to a no-contact order.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm and that supervision orders would be inadequate to mitigate those risks.

Both children were placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The Children's Aid Society brought a 14B motion seeking to suspend all in-person access between the mother and child due to COVID-19 pandemic concerns.

The child, aged 18 months, was in the temporary care of the father subject to society supervision, with specified access to the mother.

Both parents opposed the motion, arguing that access is not a procedural matter suitable for 14B determination and that they were adhering to COVID-19 directives.

The court dismissed the society's motion, finding that a blanket policy suspending access without specific evidence of non-compliance with COVID-19 protocols was inconsistent with a comprehensive analysis of the child's best interests.

Motion to change final custody and child support orders.

The respondent father sought to change the joint legal custody arrangement to split custody, adjust child support retroactively from September 2018, and modify the time-sharing schedule.

The applicant mother opposed the custody change but agreed to equal summer sharing and a material change in circumstances due to the father's job loss.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change to the custody and access provisions, as both parents' needs were being adequately met despite communication difficulties.

The court did find a material change in the father's employment circumstances and adjusted child support retroactively from July 1, 2018, based on reduced income, and prospectively from June 1, 2019, based on new employment income.