ONCJ 2020

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning four children with developmental, emotional, medical and educational needs.

The Children's Aid Society sought to maintain custody of the children after they were brought into care on December 18, 2019, due to protection concerns arising from the father's mental health crisis, controlling behaviour, and refusal to cooperate with services.

The mother, who had been subject to the father's domination, sought the return of the children.

The court found that while protection concerns existed, a supervision order placing the children with the mother was appropriate, provided she lived separately from the father and his contact with the children was supervised by the CAS.

A mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking to suspend the father's in-person access with the children due to health and safety concerns.

The mother reported that she and the children exhibited COVID-19 symptoms, and the father's parents had recently returned from international travel.

The court found that most of the mother's requests were not urgent but determined that temporary suspension of in-person access was warranted based on the children's health circumstances and the father's failure to provide information regarding COVID-19 safety measures.

The court ordered that in-person access be suspended temporarily and replaced with virtual contact via Skype, FaceTime, and telephone, pending further determination of urgency.

A 19-year-old Canadian citizen with no criminal record was charged with 13 offences including attempt murder, occupying a motor vehicle with a firearm, and related firearms offences arising from a shooting incident in Toronto.

The Crown sought detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds in a reverse onus hearing.

The accused proposed a plan of house arrest with two sureties (his mother and sister).

The court found the Crown's case was circumstantial with significant evidentiary weaknesses regarding the identity of the getaway driver.

The court granted release on strict conditions, finding the accused had met his onus on all three grounds.

The applicant mother sought an emergency order for the return of her child from the respondent father, who had taken the child to Newfoundland and Labrador during a school break in March 2020 and refused to return her.

The respondent claimed it was unsafe to return due to COVID-19 pandemic concerns.

The court found that the parties had an established arrangement whereby the mother had sole custody, the child's ordinary residence was in Ontario, and the trip was intended as a short holiday.

The court granted an order requiring the child's immediate return to the mother's custody, with specific deadlines and police enforcement provisions.

A costs endorsement arising from contested motions regarding parenting arrangements for two children born to parties in a high-conflict family law matter.

The applicant sought immediate overnight parenting time with the younger child and progression to equal parenting, while the respondent opposed immediate overnight access and sought supervised access exchanges.

The court adjourned the motions to a later date when the child would be older.

The respondent was substantially more successful on the dominant issue and was awarded partial costs.

A mother sought specified access to her 15-year-old daughter and access to the daughter's school records.

The daughter, who had disclosed physical abuse by the mother and had run away from her care, consistently expressed that she did not wish to have contact with her mother.

The court dismissed both motions, finding that specified access was not in the child's best interests and that the child's school records were privileged under the Education Act and should not be disclosed.

The court emphasized the child's views and preferences, the mother's volatile and verbally abusive conduct, and the child's privacy interests.

A youth was charged with attempt to commit murder and aggravated assault following a stabbing incident.

The complainant, a 23-year-old male, was stabbed twice in the neck and face by the accused and another person after being lured to a meeting.

The Crown sought convictions on both counts.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault but acquitted him of attempt to commit murder, finding that while the stabbing was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the specific intent to kill could not be inferred as the only reasonable inference from the evidence.

The court noted credibility concerns regarding the complainant but found substantial corroborating evidence including surveillance video, witness testimony, and medical evidence supporting the assault conviction.

An emergency motion heard in chambers concerning a custody dispute between two parents.

The respondent father had retained the child in violation of a final custody order made by Justice P. Clay at trial, which awarded custody to the applicant mother with limited access to the father.

The father had appealed the trial judgment to the Superior Court and sought a stay of the order.

The court found that the father's retention of the child constituted a blatant breach of the valid court order and that the father's assertion that the order was null and void was legally unfounded.

The court issued an emergency order requiring immediate apprehension and return of the child to the mother's custody and suspended all access by the father pending further court order.

This is a criminal matter before the Ontario Court of Justice involving the Crown and the accused Knott.

The full reasons for judgment are not available at this time.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his estranged wife.

The defendant admitted striking his wife three to four times in the face, causing significant injuries including two black eyes and broken nasal bones.

The defendant raised a self-defence claim under Criminal Code section 34, arguing he acted to protect his three-year-old son from imminent harm.

The Crown conceded there was an air of reality to the defence.

The court found that the defendant subjectively believed his son's safety was at risk and that this belief was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, including the complainant's prior threat of self-harm, her volatile behavior that evening, and her deliberate destruction of his clothing.

The court concluded the force used was reasonable in the circumstances and acquitted the defendant.

The accused were jointly charged with offences arising from a gunpoint robbery at a Husky truck stop on Highway 401 near London, Ontario, and a subsequent attempted break-in and stabbing at a car wash near Warden Avenue in Scarborough, Toronto.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed the London robbery and the Toronto attempted break-in and assault.

However, the Crown failed to establish the motive for the Toronto incidents as robbery, and therefore the accused were acquitted of the joint robbery charge relating to the car wash owner.

The accused were convicted on most counts but acquitted of the Toronto robbery charge.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused contested the substance of both charges and brought multiple Charter motions challenging the reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand, alleging a change in jeopardy requiring a second consultation with counsel, and arguing the refusal was incomplete due to lack of opportunity to consult counsel.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting an acquaintance following a night out at a club.

The complainant testified that the accused pushed her into a bedroom, forcibly removed her clothing, digitally penetrated her, and attempted to force her to perform oral sex despite her repeated verbal and physical resistance.

The accused provided a contrasting account, claiming the interaction was consensual until he made an offensive comment about her body odour, which caused the complainant to leave.

A key witness testified to observing consensual physical contact between the parties prior to entry into the bedroom, which contradicted the complainant's account of being pushed.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) test and found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's guilt based on the totality of evidence, including credibility concerns about the complainant's testimony regarding alcohol consumption and the corroborating evidence of the third-party witness.

The defendant was charged with driving a motorized personal mobility device (described as a Segway-type device) on a roadway in contravention of City of Hamilton Bylaw 01-215, which prohibits riding on toy vehicles or similar devices on roadways.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that the bylaw does not apply to motorized devices because municipalities lack authority to regulate motor vehicles without express provincial authorization.

The device did not conform to definitions in provincial pilot project regulations for low-speed vehicles or electric kick-scooters, and the bylaw's enumerated devices were all non-motorized, indicating the city's limited jurisdiction over motor vehicles.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl as part of a four-month RCMP investigation into drug trafficking in Ontario.

Over three transactions between May and July 2019, the accused sold significant quantities of drugs to an undercover police agent for approximately $100,400 in total, receiving only a nominal amount in the low thousands of dollars for his role.

The court imposed a global sentence of 9 years in the penitentiary, reduced to 8 years after pre-trial custody credit on a 1.5:1 basis.

The court rejected the defence request for additional credit for harsh lockdown conditions during pre-trial custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of assault with a weapon arising from three separate stabbing incidents that occurred on October 31-November 1, 2018, in Waterloo.

The incidents involved unprovoked attacks on three victims using a knife, with one victim suffering life-threatening injuries.

The court imposed a sentence of 42 months concurrent, reduced to 17 months after credit for 501 days of pre-trial custody on an enhanced basis.

The sentence was further subject to a three-year probation order with conditions including counselling, employment requirements, and a 20-year weapons prohibition.

The applicant father sought temporary sole custody of two children, an order that they be returned to Toronto from M'Chigeeng First Nation where the respondent mother had unilaterally taken them, and police enforcement of a prior ex parte order.

The respondent mother sought temporary joint custody with the children remaining on M'Chigeeng First Nation, a restraining order, and challenged the court's jurisdiction based on section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

M'Chigeeng First Nation intervened, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the children and instructing a local First Nations police service not to enforce the court's order.

The court granted temporary joint custody, ordered the children returned to Toronto, dismissed the mother's request for relocation and restraining order, and declined to order police enforcement or find contempt, giving the mother one final opportunity to comply voluntarily.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and assault causing bodily harm arising from a sexual encounter with the complainant.

The Crown alleged that the accused became aggressive and violent without consent during the encounter.

The accused admitted to becoming aggressive and dominant but maintained that the complainant consented to all sexual acts.

The trial judge found that the complainant suffered bodily harm but concluded that the Crown failed to prove the absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's testimony, though not accepted, raised a reasonable doubt regarding consent.

Additionally, the judge found that while bodily harm was caused, the Crown failed to prove that the accused intended to cause bodily harm, as opposed to causing transient pain within the context of consensual sexual activity.

Both charges were dismissed.

This motion to change involved competing applications by both parents regarding custody, decision-making authority, and parenting time for their 10-year-old daughter.

The mother sought sole custody and changes to the parenting schedule, while the father sought sole custody and increased parenting time.

The court found no material change in circumstances warranting a change in primary residence, but found a material change in circumstances regarding major decision-making due to significantly increased conflict between the parties.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, terminated the joint custody arrangement, and modified the parenting schedule to reduce direct parental engagement while maintaining the father's meaningful relationship with the child.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts representing eleven offences involving the surreptitious recording of a minor, child luring, making sexually explicit material available to minors, and possession of child pornography with respect to ten victims aged eleven to sixteen years old over a nine-month period.

The court imposed a sentence of four and a half years in the penitentiary with consecutive sentences on each count, a lifetime SOIRA order, a DNA order, a ten-year weapons prohibition, and a nine-year section 161 order with tailored conditions.

The court rejected the defence argument that the offender's mild to moderate cognitive and intellectual disabilities should significantly mitigate his moral culpability, finding that the offences demonstrated sophistication, planning, and deliberation rather than impulsivity or immaturity.