Patrick T. McCool

The accused was charged with two counts of attempted murder of Raheem Mitchell and Nishan Singh, as well as charges related to pointing, discharging, and using a firearm without lawful excuse, and possessing a handgun without a licence.

A shooting incident occurred on August 25, 2013, at Swansea Mews in Toronto.

The Crown sought committal for trial on all charges.

The defence challenged both the identity of the shooter and whether there was sufficient evidence of intent to kill.

The court found that circumstantial evidence, including video footage, clothing matching, gunshot residue, and witness testimony, established that the accused was the shooter.

The court also found sufficient evidence of intent to kill based on the number of shots fired, the proximity of the victims, the trajectory of the bullets, and the accused's deliberate actions.

The Crown's request for additional counts of attempted murder against other members of the group was rejected as there was insufficient evidence of intent to kill them.

The applicant mother sought a declaration that the child was wrongfully removed from France by the respondent father and sought an order for the child's immediate return.

The father opposed the application, claiming a grave risk of physical or psychological harm to the child if returned to France.

The court found that the child was habitually resident in France, the mother had custody rights, the mother was exercising those rights at the time of removal, and the child was being wrongfully detained in Canada.

The court rejected the father's defences under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention, finding insufficient evidence of grave risk.

The court also found the child had not attained sufficient age and maturity to have her objections considered.

The court ordered the child's return to France, subject to transitional arrangements to be determined at a follow-up conference.

The respondent brought a motion to change seeking to reduce his child support obligation and fix arrears at a nominal amount, claiming he had made direct cash payments to the applicant and that two letters signed by the applicant forgave accumulated arrears.

The applicant opposed the motion, claiming she never received direct payments and that the letters were signed under pressure without intent to forgive arrears.

The court found that the two letters dated May 28, 2006 and November 13, 2009 did forgive arrears for the period from March 1, 2005 to November 30, 2009.

However, the court rejected the respondent's claim of direct cash payments for the subsequent period, finding insufficient corroboration.

The court fixed arrears at $7,036.29 and varied ongoing child support from $605.00 to $496.00 per month based on a demonstrated change in the respondent's income.