ONCJ 2020

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm against a child in his care.

The accused sought production of notes made by the child's foster mother (H.N.) a few days after the alleged assault.

H.N. had prepared these notes at the request of her family lawyer to obtain legal advice regarding custody proceedings.

The notes were protected by solicitor-client privilege.

The court rejected the accused's argument that H.N. waived privilege by seeking to refresh her memory from the notes prior to trial.

The court applied a flexible, principled approach to determine whether implied waiver occurred, balancing the probative value of the document against the prejudicial effect of breaching solicitor-client privilege.

The application for production was dismissed.

The applicant father sought joint custody of the parties' child with primary residence with the respondent mother and weekend access, or alternatively sole custody.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and permission to relocate with the child from Brampton to London, Ontario for employment purposes.

The court found the respondent was the primary caregiver and granted temporary permission for relocation, finding the move would not materially interfere with the applicant's access and would provide financial benefits to the family unit.

The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes.

The defendant was tried on eight counts of improperly claiming or obtaining refunds under section 239(1.1) of the Income Tax Act.

The Crown alleged that the defendant prepared and filed false T2 Corporate Income Tax Returns containing false claims for taxes withheld at source in order to fraudulently obtain refunds.

The defendant, representing himself, raised various arguments including that he was not an OPCA litigant, that the court lacked jurisdiction, and that he was a natural person not obliged to pay taxes.

The trial judge found the defendant guilty on all eight counts, determining that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that false statements were made in the T2 Returns, that the defendant participated in making those statements, that refunds were claimed, and that the defendant knew the statements were false and intended to obtain unwarranted refunds.

Pre-trial motions in a child protection proceeding involving two children (N. and H.) brought by the Children's Aid Society of Peel.

The Society sought to admit prior court decisions as evidence of past parenting and exclude further evidence on matters already adjudicated.

The respondent father sought to exclude prior decisions and adduce evidence regarding parenting of siblings, citing a recent Court of Appeal decision quashing the parents' criminal manslaughter conviction and ordering a new trial.

The court applied the principle of res judicata and found that prior findings regarding the care of children M., Am., and N. were not displaced by the fresh evidence regarding the cause of death.

The court admitted prior decisions as evidence of past parenting and estopped the parents from calling evidence on matters already adjudicated.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded, prohibited handgun and breaches of court orders prohibiting weapon possession.

At trial, the defence brought a Charter application under section 24(2) seeking exclusion of the firearm and related evidence, alleging violations of section 10(b) (right to counsel without delay) and section 10(a) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest).

The Crown conceded a breach of section 10(b) with respect to a portion of the delay between arrest and access to counsel.

The court found serious and unjustified breaches of the right to counsel spanning approximately 4.5 hours, with particular concern regarding the deliberate failure of senior officers to record their interactions and decision-making.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The Crown alleged that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while impaired by drugs on July 16, 2018, following a motor vehicle collision in London, Ontario.

The defendant was arrested after an Approved Screening Device test showed zero alcohol content.

A Drug Recognition Evaluator concluded the defendant was impaired by narcotic analgesics and cannabis.

The defendant testified he had not consumed impairing drugs prior to driving.

The court found that while the defendant's ability to operate a motor vehicle may have been impaired, the Crown failed to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was acquitted.

Supplementary reasons following a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving three children.

The court determined placement and access for the middle child (J., age 14).

The court ordered that J. be placed in the care and custody of his maternal grandmother, subject to a seven-month supervision order, rather than remaining in foster care or being returned to his mother.

The court found the grandmother was not a source of risk of harm despite the society's objections.

The court also granted J. access to his mother and grandmother as access holder, with specific terms and conditions.

The decision addresses the balance between protection concerns and the statutory purposes of maintaining family relationships and cultural continuity.

Supplementary reasons following a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning three children in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Algoma.

These reasons address the placement and access determinations for the youngest child, P., who was placed in extended society care.

The court considered statutory provisions governing access for children in extended society care and determined that access orders should be made in the child's best interests, applying a holistic analysis that considers the child's wishes, relationships, and overall circumstances rather than applying a blanket policy approach.

Supplementary reasons following a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act concerning three children in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Algoma.

These reasons address the placement and access arrangements for the child M., a 16-year-old girl.

The court determined that placement with the maternal grandmother was appropriate, subject to a nine-month supervision order with tailored conditions.

The court rejected the Society's concerns regarding the grandmother's suitability as a caregiver and granted M. access to her mother as the access holder, with conditions permitting both supervised and unsupervised contact.

The decision emphasizes the statutory obligation to consider placement with relatives and the importance of respecting a mature minor's wishes and best interests.

The accused was charged with sexual assaults of two men and sought a stay of charges based on Charter violations (sections 7, 8, and 15) challenging the constitutionality of police authority to publish media releases identifying the accused and detailing accusations, as well as on grounds of lost evidence due to police negligence.

The court ruled that the determination of whether the Crown proved the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt would precede consideration of the constitutional challenge and lost evidence issues.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault following a five-day trial.

The Crown sought an 18-month custodial sentence followed by probation and ancillary orders.

The defence sought an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence with house arrest for the first 270 days, followed by graduated curfew conditions, probation for 18 months, mandatory DNA order, SOIRA registration for 10 years, and completion of the Sexual Offender Relapse Prevention-I program.

The court found that while denunciation and deterrence remain primary objectives for sexual assault, a conditional sentence was appropriate given the offender's youth, first-time offender status, lack of aggravating features such as violence or threats, and the need to reduce reliance on incarceration.

A lawyer pleaded guilty to 12 counts including obstruct justice, using and dealing with forged documents, forgery, and fraudulently personating another person.

The offences involved systematically defrauding multiple clients by forging court orders, settlement agreements, and affidavits of service, and misrepresenting the status of their legal cases.

The Crown sought a 6-month jail term emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 12-18 months.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence, finding that the offender's undiagnosed and untreated Major Depressive Disorder contributed to the offences, that rehabilitation was a primary concern, and that collateral consequences including disbarment provided sufficient denunciation and deterrence.

The Toronto Star Newspapers Limited, through Chief Investigative Reporter Kevin Donovan, brought the fifth application to unseal search warrants, production orders, and Informations to Obtain (ITOs) in the ongoing investigation into the double murder of Honey and Barry Sherman.

The police agreed to unseal the first four ITOs with redactions, citing that they were at an early stage and of a more general nature.

The applicant challenged the redactions as overly cautious.

The court partially granted the application, unsealing certain medical and background information while maintaining redactions for holdback and hallmark information, potential persons of interest, motive, Apotex business information, and estate information.

The remaining eight ITOs were kept fully sealed as they were of a more focused nature and disclosure would compromise the ongoing investigation.

The accused was arrested following a motor vehicle collision on Highway 400.

During the accident investigation, he provided false identification to police.

A search of his vehicle revealed a loaded handgun with an overcapacity magazine containing 13 rounds of ammunition, which had been stolen in the United States.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95 of the Criminal Code and possession of a firearm knowing its serial number was defaced contrary to s. 92.

The court imposed a sentence of 14 months incarceration (reduced from 18 months to account for COVID-19 collateral consequences), plus three years probation, with credit for presentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

The mother sought permission to relocate temporarily with two young children (ages 4 and 12 months) from Toronto to Ottawa pending trial.

The father opposed the motion, arguing the move would marginalize his role as father and prejudice his position at trial.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding compelling circumstances existed to permit the temporary relocation.

The mother was the primary caregiver, the children were thriving in her care, and the move would provide financial security, family support, and emotional stability.

The distance was not prohibitive, and the father could relocate to Ottawa if he wished to maintain contact with the children.

A custody and access dispute between separated parents regarding their child, Jarvis Lebrun.

The mother sought joint custody with primary residence and liberal access for the father.

The father sought to maintain the status quo with the child residing primarily with him.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child's interests.

After considering the child's clear and consistent preference to reside with the mother, the support system available to the mother, and the less-than-ideal circumstances of the father's care arrangement, the court awarded joint custody with primary residence to the mother and liberal access to the father.

The accused pleaded guilty to assaulting her three-year-old son by striking him multiple times on the buttocks, causing extensive bruising, and grabbing him by the face while screaming at him.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought a suspended sentence with three years probation.

Defence counsel sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge for three years with conditions including curfew, probation supervision, participation in counselling and anger management programs, and restrictions on contact with the child except as authorized by the Children's Aid Society or family court order.

The court also imposed ancillary orders for DNA collection and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The offender pleaded guilty to luring a 13-year-old girl via the internet for the purpose of facilitating sexual abuse under section 152 of the Criminal Code, and to distributing intimate images of the victim without consent under section 163.1.

The offender induced the victim to perform sexual acts and self-harm on video, captured screenshots, and subsequently distributed these images to peers in the victim's community as an act of revenge when the victim moved on to a local boy.

The victim suffered severe psychological harm, including anxiety, depression, suicide attempts, bullying, and academic decline.

The court imposed a sentence of five years less 68 days (4 years and 297 days) on the primary count, with three years concurrent on the secondary count, plus ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA, firearms prohibition, and section 161 conditions.

A youth was found guilty of sexual assault following trial.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

At sentencing, the court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order for six months followed by probation for eighteen months, along with a DNA order and weapons prohibition.

The court considered the sentencing principles under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the serious impact on the victim, and the offender's background and prospects for rehabilitation.

The court found that the offence, while serious, fell within the lower end of the spectrum of sexual assault conduct and that a custodial disposition was not necessary given the availability of reasonable alternatives.

At a preliminary inquiry into a shooting at the Pickering Ribfest on June 2, 2018, the court determined the admissibility of hearsay evidence, specifically police statements from three key witnesses who claimed memory loss at trial.

The Crown sought to introduce statements from Shamar John, Zachery Hamedi, and Vaughan Roberts under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found that the twin criteria of necessity and threshold reliability were satisfied for all three witnesses' statements.

The court also addressed the admissibility of a Snapchat video and the identification of the accused by the accused's brother.

The court committed the accused to stand trial on multiple charges related to the shooting.