Patrick J. Monahan

The applicant mother brought a motion for interim child and spousal support and to determine the parenting schedule.

The parties agreed to a 2-2-3 shared parenting schedule and that the respondent father would employ a live-in nanny during his parenting time.

The court held that the respondent's parenting time would not be suspended if the nanny was occasionally unavailable, and that the nanny's cost was a section 7 expense to be shared proportionately.

For support purposes, the court imputed income to the respondent under section 19(1)(i) of the Child Support Guidelines based on capital distributions he received from a trust, grossing up those tax-free amounts.

The respondent was ordered to pay interim child and spousal support based on an imputed income of $327,000.

The applicant sought spousal support, a divorce, and corollary relief in an uncontested trial after the respondent's pleadings were struck for egregious non-disclosure.

The court found the applicant entitled to indefinite spousal support of $12,314.50 per month based on the respondent's imputed income.

The court also awarded retroactive spousal support back to the date of separation in 2013, citing the respondent's bad faith and attempt to conceal assets.

The respondent's share of the matrimonial home proceeds held in trust was ordered released to the applicant to partially satisfy the retroactive support arrears.

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a full indemnity basis.

The applicant brought a motion for interim spousal support following the breakdown of a traditional marriage.

The respondent, a high-income earner operating a mini-tender business through various corporations, argued his income was highly volatile and currently nil.

The court applied a cautious approach to income determination on an interim basis, accepting the respondent's expert's calculation of a three-year average income of $1.8 million, which accounted for necessary corporate retained earnings.

The court ordered the respondent to pay interim spousal support of $65,625 per month based on the mid-range of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines, commencing February 1, 2021.

The applicant sought an order for exclusive possession of a property solely owned by him, where his former common-law partner and their children resided.

A previous order allowed the respondent to remain if she assumed responsibility for a collateral mortgage and brought a spousal support motion.

The respondent failed to meet these conditions and sought to set them aside under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion to set aside the conditions, finding no fraud or mistake, and granted the applicant exclusive possession, ordering the respondent to vacate within 60 days.

This endorsement provides a clarification to an earlier ruling on a pre-trial motion.

The respondent (moving party) had sought to prevent the applicant from raising issues concerning the ownership, control, or valuation of Firm Capital Mortgage Corporation or Door to Door Investments Inc. (FCMC Companies) at trial.

The original motion was dismissed, allowing the applicant to raise these issues.

The clarification emphasizes that this permission does not dictate the manner in which these matters may be raised, the admissibility of evidence, or how evidence may be led.

It also clarifies that the ruling did not address the addition of Marilyn Dadouch or the FCMC Companies as parties, stating that such relief would require a separate motion.

The Respondent sought a pre-trial ruling to preclude the Applicant from raising issues related to the ownership, control, or valuation of certain companies (FCMC Companies) at trial.

The Respondent argued irrelevance, abuse of process due to a parallel civil action, issue estoppel from a prior disclosure motion, lack of necessary parties, and insufficient pleadings.

The court dismissed the Respondent's motion, finding the Applicant's claims relevant to net family property and support, no abuse of process as the legal issues differed from the civil action, no issue estoppel as the prior ruling was on disclosure, and no preclusion due to non-joinder of parties or insufficient pleadings, as the Respondent had clear notice of the issues.

The court determined costs following pre-trial motions where both parties sought numerous heads of relief.

The court found the Applicant primarily responsible for the excessive and disproportionate time and resources spent due to consistently unreasonable positions and refusal to compromise.

The Respondent was deemed the successful party on key issues, including the sale of the matrimonial home and disclosure, and bettered their offers to settle.

Despite the Respondent seeking "full recovery" costs, the court applied principles of proportionality and reasonableness, noting the Respondent also raised an inordinate number of issues.

The Applicant was ordered to pay the Respondent $35,000 plus HST for a total of $39,550.

Gianluca Salvati was found guilty of multiple drug trafficking offences (cocaine, fentanyl, crack cocaine), possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of recognizance following a judge-alone trial.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his extensive criminal record, the significant quantity of drugs (including fentanyl with a street value up to $20,600), and his limited potential for rehabilitation.

Mitigating factors were minimal.

The Crown sought a seven-year sentence, while the defence sought five years.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years, less credit for pre-sentence custody, including enhanced credit for lockdowns and COVID-19 conditions.

The parties, separated since 2016, brought competing motions for interim relief involving over 20 issues.

The primary issue was the respondent's motion to compel the sale of the jointly owned matrimonial home pursuant to the Partition Act and a prior interim separation agreement.

The applicant opposed the sale, arguing market conditions were poor and a sale would prejudice her family law claims.

The court granted the order for sale, finding the applicant asserted no possessory interest in the home and the respondent had sufficient other assets to satisfy any potential equalization or trust claims.

Both parties' requests for the appointment of a joint expert were dismissed due to unworkable mandates.

The applicant's requests for further disclosure and additional life insurance were also dismissed, as was the respondent's request for a restraining order.

The applicant father brought a motion for increased interim parenting time with his six-year-old child, seeking additional overnights, earlier pick-up times, and extended summer access.

The respondent mother opposed any changes, arguing the status quo should be maintained until trial and that the father's proposed schedule would require a 45-minute commute to school.

The court rejected the mother's argument that changes must be deferred to trial, finding no need to prove urgency or a material change in circumstances for an interim order.

The court granted the father a Tuesday overnight, earlier pick-up times, extended time for PA days and statutory holidays, and additional summer weeks, but denied a Sunday overnight to avoid excessive commuting for the child.

The accused, Daquon Dawkins, was charged with unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a restricted firearm without a license, and possession of a firearm while prohibited.

The trial involved a voir dire challenging the validity of search warrants obtained based on confidential informant information, applying the Garofoli "Step 6" procedure and Debot criteria.

The court upheld the warrants, finding the information to obtain (ITO) provided sufficient grounds and full, fair, and frank disclosure.

The central issue at trial was whether Dawkins had knowledge of the handgun found in a backpack he was carrying.

The court rejected Dawkins' exculpatory testimony as incredible and found him guilty of all charges, concluding that his knowledge of the firearm was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence and common sense inferences.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking a temporary equal parenting schedule for the parties' two children after the respondent mother left the matrimonial home and severely restricted his access.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking primary residence, supervised access for the father, and a section 30 assessment, alleging the father was a safety risk.

The court relied on a Children's Aid Society investigation that found no protection concerns and concluded it was in the children's best interests to have equal access to both parents.

The court granted the father's request for a 2-2-3 parenting schedule and dismissed the mother's request for a section 30 assessment.

The accused was tried on sexual assault and sexual touching counts involving two 15-year-old complainants arising from separate incidents at the same apartment during the same summer.

The court admitted the evidence of each complainant as similar fact evidence on the other counts, applying the Handy framework and finding substantial similarities, strong probative value, and no air of reality to allegations of collusion.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused’s testimony as incredible and found both complainants credible, internally consistent, and corroborated by surrounding evidence, including expert medical evidence respecting healed genital injury to one complainant.

Convictions were entered on all remaining counts.

The accused was tried on charges of sexual assault, sexual touching of a person under 14 for a sexual purpose, and assault arising from alleged historic abuse of his stepdaughter.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework, reviewed the law governing proof beyond a reasonable doubt, child witness evidence, and impermissible myths and stereotypes in sexual assault cases.

Although the complainant testified in a straightforward manner, the court found significant inconsistencies and gaps in the Crown’s evidence, while finding the accused’s denial internally consistent and plausible.

The court was left with a reasonable doubt on all counts and acquitted the accused.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible, objected to the Ontario Review Board holding her annual disposition review hearing by videoconference during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Board ruled it had the authority to proceed by videoconference without her consent and over her objections.

The applicant sought a writ of certiorari to quash the ruling.

The Superior Court of Justice granted the application, finding that under section 672.5(13) of the Criminal Code, the Board may only hold a hearing by videoconference if the accused consents, and therefore the Board exceeded its jurisdiction.

The accused sought a review of his detention order pursuant to s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

He faced multiple charges across different regions, including weapons offences and breaches of release conditions.

The court found that the accused lacked insight into his mental health issues and was unlikely to comply with the proposed release plan involving a mental health support organization.

The court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the accused would reoffend if released, and that his continued detention was necessary for public safety.

The application was dismissed.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained from the execution of a tracking warrant and subsequent search warrants.

The warrants were based on information from a confidential informer indicating the accused was trafficking cocaine and possessed firearms.

The court found that the tracking warrant and search warrants were validly issued based on reasonable and probable grounds, despite minor inadvertent omissions regarding the informer's criminal record.

The court also held that the accused had standing to challenge the search of an apartment where he kept a locked safe, but ultimately dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

The offender, an 18-year-old Black man at the time of the offences, was convicted of assault causing bodily harm, being unlawfully in a dwelling house, and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence with probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge for the marijuana offence but found a conditional discharge contrary to the public interest for the violent and property offences.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years' probation for the assault and dwelling house offences.

The accused was charged with motor vehicle offenses arising from a police chase and drug-related offenses following the execution of a search warrant.

The court acquitted the accused of the motor vehicle charges, finding the fleeting eyewitness identification of the driver unreliable.

However, the court convicted the accused of possession of cocaine, crack cocaine, and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, as circumstantial evidence established he had placed the drugs in plain view in a bathroom immediately prior to his arrest.

The court also admitted a photocopy of a recognizance under the principled exception to the hearsay rule, convicting the accused of breaching his release conditions.

The accused applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, seeking release on a house arrest plan with two sureties and GPS monitoring.

The accused was previously detained on the secondary ground due to a substantial likelihood of reoffending, having allegedly committed the current drug trafficking offences while on multiple bails.

The court found that while there was a material change in circumstances, the proposed sureties lacked sufficient knowledge of the accused to provide effective supervision.

The application was dismissed as the release plan did not adequately address the secondary ground concerns.