ONCJ 2024

The applicant father sought a court order for family reconciliation therapy involving himself, the respondent mother, and their child, E. The mother opposed, arguing it was not in E.'s best interests, citing E.'s expressed views against it.

The court, relying on a Voice of the Child report, found E. to be a mature teenager whose wishes, while considered, were not determinative.

The court noted the mother's problematic behavior in hindering the father-child relationship and her failure to propose alternatives.

Concluding that reconciliation therapy was in E.'s best interests to restore contact and address family dynamics, the court granted the father's motion and ordered all parties to participate in therapy under specific terms.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making, specific parenting time, travel/document orders, and special/extraordinary expenses for the three children of the marriage.

The respondent father sought joint decision-making and broader travel rights.

The court granted the mother sole decision-making responsibility, finding poor communication and a lack of mutual trust and respect between the parents.

The father's parenting time was limited to day visits, with overnights at the mother's discretion, due to lack of evidence for overnight accommodation.

The mother was granted authority to obtain children's documents and travel internationally without the father's consent, while the father requires the mother's written consent for international travel, citing a credible risk of non-return to Canada.

The father was ordered to pay s.7 arrears and 82% of ongoing special and extraordinary expenses.

This trial concerned parenting and child support arrangements for the parties' four-year-old child.

The mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making, and child support.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, and no child support.

The court found it in the child's best interests to be in the primary care of the father with sole decision-making responsibility, citing the mother's emotional fragility, contempt for the father, unwillingness to cooperate, and attempts to alienate the child from the father.

The court also imputed income to the father for retroactive child support from the date of separation but terminated ongoing child support due to the father having primary residence and not seeking support from the mother.

The Jewish Family and Child Services (JFCS) brought a summary judgment motion for extended society care of the child D.S. and for specific access terms with the mother, Z.Y. The mother, represented by the Public Guardian and Trustee, did not oppose extended care but made submissions on access.

The father, B.S., was in default.

The court granted the JFCS's request for extended care, finding no genuine issue for trial given the mother's persistent untreated mental health issues and the child's thriving in care.

The court also granted access at the society's discretion, with the child as the sole access holder, and allowed the society to obtain legal documents for the child without parental consent.

This was a trial concerning parenting and child support arrangements for two children.

The father sought primary residence and sole decision-making, while the mother sought the same.

The court found a power imbalance in the relationship favoring the father and noted the mother's consistent role as primary caregiver and her proactive efforts in securing supports for the children, particularly for the son's hearing disability.

The court criticized the father's unilateral actions, including relocating the children without consent, severing the mother's contact, and neglecting health issues.

The court ordered the children's primary residence to be with the mother, granted her sole decision-making authority with a duty to consult, and established a detailed parenting time schedule for the father.

The father was ordered to pay child support based on his imputed income, and extraordinary expenses were to be shared proportionately.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion seeking a final order to place two children (J.W. Jr. and A.D.) in the permanent care and custody of a kin caregiver (C.R.) under section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Society also sought orders regarding access for the mother (S.D.) and fathers, and the kin caregiver's ability to secure documentation and travel with the children.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children, but did not file affidavit evidence.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that the mother's untreated and recurring mental health issues posed a high and unmitigated risk to the children, and her plan of care was not in the children's best interests.

The court granted the Society's requested orders, emphasizing the children's need for permanency, their special needs, and their Métis cultural connection with the kin caregiver.

The accused, Ali Alavi, pleaded not guilty to a charge of sexual assault.

The Crown alleged he sexually assaulted the complainant, S.A., at his residence after drugging her, rendering her incapacitated for consent in the master bedroom, and then forcing non-consensual vaginal intercourse in a second bedroom.

The defence contended the allegations were fabricated or based on false memories.

The court found the complainant was drugged and incapable of consenting in the master bedroom, and that she did not consent to sexual activity in the second bedroom.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault.

The defendant, Li Kai Li, was arraigned on charges of attempted murder (x2) and assault.

The defence admitted the acts but sought a finding of not criminally responsible (NCR) due to mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

A forensic psychiatrist diagnosed Mr. Li with schizophrenia, exacerbated by cannabis use, which rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his acts or knowing they were morally or legally wrong.

The court accepted the expert's findings, declared Mr. Li not criminally responsible for the offences, and deferred his initial disposition to the Ontario Review Board, ordering him to remain in custody during that process.

The Applicant, Zhong Zhang, faced charges of possession for the purpose of trafficking fentanyl and cocaine.

He brought three Charter applications: a Section 11(b) application for unreasonable delay, a Section 8 Garofoli challenge to judicial authorizations, and a Section 7 application alleging a failure by the affiant to make notes.

The court dismissed the 11(b) application, finding the delay was attributable to the defence's late and voluminous filings.

For the Section 8 challenge, the court, applying R. v. Maric, limited the Applicant's standing to only two December 29 ITOs where he had a reasonable expectation of privacy, and found no Section 8 violation as the affiant made full, frank, and fair disclosure.

The Section 7 application was also dismissed, as the court found the affiant complied with note-taking duties and no Charter breach was established.

All applications were dismissed.

This ruling addresses a defence application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to admit evidence of prior consensual sexual activity between the accused and the complainant in a historical sexual assault case.

The accused sought to introduce the evidence to contextualize his actions and challenge the complainant's credibility regarding the nature of their prior relationship, arguing that without it, his conduct would appear unexplained.

The Crown and complainant opposed, asserting it would invite "twin myths." The court granted the application, finding the evidence admissible as it was fundamental to the coherence of the defence narrative and not being adduced for prohibited purposes, drawing parallels to R. v. Temertzoglou.

The decision emphasizes the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The accused, Simranjit Singh, was charged with sexual assault contrary to s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The case involved three alleged instances of non-consensual touching of the complainant, A.B., including pouring oil, attempting to spoon, and digital penetration, all of which the accused denied.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, finding the accused's testimony not credible due to multiple inconsistencies and attempts to mislead.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, finding that the touching was intentional, objectively sexual, and occurred without consent, with the accused knowing or being wilfully blind to the lack of consent.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The respondent mother brought a motion for security for costs against the applicant father.

The court denied the motion for security for costs, finding that the mother had not met the onus to demonstrate that the father's claims were a waste of time or a nuisance, and that such orders are a blunt instrument to be used sparingly.

However, the court, troubled by the father's admitted non-compliance with previous temporary child support and costs orders, conditionally struck the father's child support claims pursuant to Family Law Rule 1(8).

The striking order would be stayed if the father brought himself into full compliance with all outstanding financial obligations by the next court date.

The defendant, William Craig Robson, was charged with dangerous operation causing death and impaired operation causing death after a snowmobile stunt involving towing two young men on sleds over open water resulted in one drowning.

The court acquitted Robson of the impaired driving charge due to reasonable doubt regarding his blood alcohol concentration at the time of operation.

However, the court found Robson guilty of dangerous operation causing death, determining that his conduct, including operating the snowmobile at high speed while towing individuals in uncontrolled conditions and under the influence of alcohol, constituted a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonable person.

The court also found legal causation, despite the victim's contributing actions, as Robson's dangerous operation was a significant contributing cause of the death.

This criminal trial involved three defendants charged with various offences, including break and enter and aggravated assault, stemming from an altercation with a tenant.

The court heard conflicting accounts from the Crown's witness and the defence witnesses.

Applying the rule in R. v. W.D., the judge assessed the credibility of all principal witnesses, noting inconsistencies and weaknesses in both narratives, particularly concerning 911 calls and witness actions.

Ultimately, the court found significant reasons to doubt the credibility of all parties, leading to a reasonable doubt as to the events of the altercation.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, and all charges were dismissed.

D.L. pleaded guilty to sexual interference and manufacturing child pornography involving his stepdaughter, A.W., who was 13-15 years old during the prolonged abuse.

The court considered aggravating factors including a profound breach of trust, sexual grooming, the graphic nature of the manufactured child sexual exploitation videos, the variety and prolonged period of sexual activity, and the use of bondage.

Mitigating factors included an early guilty plea and a forensic risk assessment indicating a "below average risk to reoffend sexually," though the offender showed diminished insight.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen regarding upward departure from dated sentencing ranges for child sexual abuse and the non-mitigating nature of victim participation.

Despite the Crown's initial proposed range of 8-10 years, the court imposed a global custodial term of 8 years, comprising 6.5 years for sexual interference and 18 months consecutive for manufacturing child pornography, balancing totality and restraint given the pre-plea Crown position and recent appellate guidance.

Inderdeep Singh Kandola pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing the death of Gita Jagpal.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of 3 to 4 years, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 18 months to 2 years less a day.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, alongside mitigating factors such as the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, remorse, and strong community support.

The judge also took into account the conditions in provincial correctional facilities.

Ultimately, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day, followed by 30 months of probation, a five-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order, finding this sentence proportionate and effective in achieving sentencing objectives without immediate incarceration.

This trial addressed two primary issues: whether the applicant (wife) was entitled to spousal support and whether the respondent (husband) had demonstrated a settled intention to treat the wife's two children from previous relationships as children of his family.

The court found that the husband had not demonstrated a settled intention to treat the children as his family, dismissing the wife's child support claim.

However, the court determined that the wife had established some compensatory entitlement to spousal support due to economic advantages conferred on the husband during their marriage and the immigration sponsorship process.

The quantum and duration of spousal support were referred back to the case management judge for determination.

This is a costs endorsement following a trial where the mother (applicant) was the successful party, as the father's (respondent's) motion to significantly reduce his child and spousal support obligations was dismissed.

The mother sought $13,000 in costs.

The court found that the mother's offer to settle did not meet the technical requirements of subrule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules for enhanced costs because it expired before the hearing started.

However, considering the father's unreasonable conduct, including deliberate under-employment and failure to make an offer to settle, and the mother's reasonable positions, the court awarded the mother $9,000 in costs.

The costs were ordered to be paid in monthly installments and enforced as an incident of support by the Family Responsibility Office, given the case was entirely about support.

Wilchina Casseus pleaded guilty to attempted auto theft.

The Crown and defence jointly recommended a suspended sentence.

The court, concerned by the prevalence of auto theft in Halton Region, requested evidence on the matter.

Despite the joint recommendation and the offender being a first-time offender, the judge departed from the recommendation, finding it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute given the aggravating factors (pre-planning, intrusion on private property, high-risk flight, lying to police) and the pressing local concern of auto theft.

An eight-month conditional sentence was imposed.

The court released its costs endorsement following a trial on child support obligations.

The applicant mother, who was the successful party at trial, sought costs of $8,092.

The respondent father did not make submissions.

The court reviewed general costs principles and the application of Rule 18(14) regarding offers to settle, finding the mother's offer did not meet the technical requirements for enhanced costs.

Considering factors under Rule 24(12), including the parties' conduct and the father's unreasonable positions on support, the court awarded the mother $6,000 in costs, payable in installments.