Pierre E. Roger

The appellant appealed his conviction for refusing to provide a breath sample after being stopped while operating a boat.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding the demand was made immediately following the officer's reasonable suspicion and misapprehended evidence regarding the delay.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's factual findings regarding the crystallization of reasonable suspicion and the justification for the delay due to approaching rapids were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an immediate change to the parenting arrangement for the parties' 12-year-old child, following a prolonged absence of parenting time.

The motion was dismissed, as the court found insufficient evidence to justify an interim change ahead of the impending trial.

Orders were made for the Office of the Children's Lawyer to appoint representation and for a therapeutic or Voice of the Child report.

Costs of $13,627 were awarded to the respondent.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, applied under s. 462.34 of the Criminal Code for the release of seized funds to pay for his reasonable legal expenses.

The Crown opposed, arguing the accused failed to prove he had no other assets or means, including Legal Aid.

The court found the accused met his onus, noting his lengthy incarceration, lack of employment, and reliable hearsay evidence that he did not qualify for Legal Aid.

The court approved the release of $44,055.88 to cover the reasonable legal fees of his current counsel at a rate of $325 per hour.

The parties, who are siblings and tenants in common of a family farm, previously agreed to an order for its sale.

While the property was listed for sale, the moving party sought to use the farm as she had in the past.

The responding parties objected, arguing that the property should remain unused until sold.

The court granted the motion, holding that as co-owners, each sibling has an equal right to reasonably use the property in a manner that does not interfere with its sale or the rights of the other co-owners.

The court established a schedule for each co-owner's exclusive use of the property pending its sale.

The defendants brought a motion to strike the plaintiff's claims for negligent misrepresentation and oppression arising from a share purchase agreement dispute.

The defendants argued the negligent misrepresentation claim failed to establish a duty of care and relied on future promises, and that the oppression claim was duplicative of a breach of contract claim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that a duty of care was sufficiently pleaded and that the oppression claim was not barred merely because a contract existed between the parties.

The plaintiff was awarded costs of $40,000.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death to the Prime Minister during an altercation at a bar.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the testimony of a single witness, whom the court found to be defensive, argumentative, and prone to exaggeration.

Applying the W.(D.) framework and the McRae test for uttering threats, the court found reasonable doubt regarding both the actus reus (whether the words were actually spoken and would be perceived as a threat by a reasonable person) and the mens rea (whether the accused intended the words to be taken seriously).

The accused was acquitted.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to strike the respondent father's pleadings, vary interim support, sell the jointly owned home, and change the child's school.

The court dismissed the requests to strike pleadings and change the child's school, finding it in the child's best interests to remain in his current school.

Interim support was maintained, though section 7 expenses were adjusted to reflect the parties' incomes.

The court ordered the sale of the home on consent, with proceeds to be divided equally.

Costs were awarded to the respondent father on a partial indemnity basis.

The defendants requested the dismissal of the plaintiff's action under Rule 2.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff had sued the defendants, including opposing counsel from a previous proceeding, alleging defamation and conspiracy based on legal submissions made in that prior proceeding.

The court found the action to be frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process, noting that statements made in legal proceedings are protected by absolute privilege.

The action was summarily dismissed.

The accused, a single mother, was charged with three counts of attempted murder and one count of uttering a threat to cause death after choking and smothering her three children.

The accused admitted to the acts and to endangering their lives, but argued she lacked the specific intent to kill due to advanced intoxication and a blackout.

The court found that while the accused was not in a state of advanced intoxication, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to kill her children, as she stopped the assault herself, instructed her child to call 911, and expressed a desire to protect them from herself.

The accused was found not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of the lesser included offences of aggravated assault and uttering threats.

The accused faced charges arising from a sustained online harassment campaign involving sexually explicit videos, pornographic material, and demeaning messages directed at the complainant, her then boyfriend, and others in their social and professional circles.

The Crown relied entirely on circumstantial evidence to prove identity, alleging motive, means, opportunity, exclusive knowledge, and sophisticated efforts to mask the source of the communications.

The court applied the circumstantial evidence framework and found that, although the evidence raised suspicion and pointed toward the accused in some respects, it did not establish that guilt was the only reasonable conclusion available on the whole of the evidence.

Concerns about the credibility and reliability of key witnesses, the lack of forensic linkage to the accused’s seized devices, and unresolved alternative inferences arising from third-party internet attribution created a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to set aside a separation agreement and a subsequent Corollary Relief Order of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

The court held that it had no jurisdiction to set aside the Nova Scotia order, as the separation agreement had been incorporated into the Corollary Relief Order and any challenge must be brought before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

The defendant Ivan Frisken's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, as the court found he was not the estate trustee, caused no damages, and there was no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff's motion was dismissed and costs were ordered on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a five-day trial, the court determined parenting time and child support for two children.

The mother sought alternating weekends for the father, while the father sought three consecutive weekends.

The court ordered two consecutive weekends with the father during the school year and equal parenting time during the summer, finding this in the children's best interests under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act.

On child support, the court imputed various unsupported business expenses back into the self-employed father's income under s. 19 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines, fixing arrears at $34,093.82 and ongoing support at $1,426.34 per month.

Costs of $7,000 were awarded to the mother due to the father's late financial disclosure.

In a family trial addressing parenting time, decision-making responsibility, child support arrears, section 7 expenses, and costs, the court fixed child support arrears at $3,000 as of September 1, 2025 and found annual income of $50,000 for support purposes.

The court held that decision-making should follow consultation, with final say to the respondent, because joint decision-making was found unworkable on the evidence.

Parenting time was expanded in a staged structure, including increased overnight time and a future increase for the younger child starting September 2026, while maintaining the children’s primary residence with the respondent.

The court also made ancillary orders on exchanges, travel, communication through OurFamilyWizard, extracurricular responsibilities, and summer and holiday arrangements.

Costs of $24,000 were awarded to the respondent, payable by the applicant, with one-third enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

Following a five-week trial, the offenders were convicted of fraud over $5,000 and uttering a forged document arising from a fraudulent mandatory entry-level training scheme for commercial truck drivers.

Between January 2019 and May 2021, the offenders operated unregistered truck driver schools, charged students $4,000-$5,000 for substandard training that did not meet MELT standards, and paid accomplices to fraudulently upload false MELT completion records to the MTO database.

Approximately 45-47 students per offender were defrauded.

The Crown sought five years imprisonment; the offenders sought a conditional sentence of 12-18 months.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less one day with strict conditions including house arrest for the full duration, 200 hours of community service, and a forfeiture order against one offender for three commercial trucks valued at approximately $100,000.

The appellant appealed convictions for mischief and obstructing police arising from his presence in a restricted area on Wellington Street during the Freedom Convoy occupation of Ottawa on February 19, 2022.

He argued the trial judge erred in finding police had common law authority to secure the area, that his arrest violated s. 9 of the Charter, that the search incident to arrest breached s. 8 of the Charter, and that the evidence should have been excluded.

The appeal court found the trial judge correctly applied the ancillary powers doctrine and properly assessed the officer's reasonable grounds for arrest.

The appeal was dismissed on all grounds.

The court sentenced the offender after convictions for multiple sexual offences against two children and child pornography offences involving both known and unknown children.

The judge found the offending extremely serious because it involved grooming, repeated abuse, abuse of trust, severe harm to the children and families, and a large volume of child pornography.

The court stayed the accessing-child-pornography count under the Kienapple principle, granted pre-sentence credit including a limited Duncan credit for triple bunking, and imposed a global sentence of 16 years’ imprisonment less credit for time served.

The court also made ancillary orders including DNA, lifetime sex offender registration, weapons prohibition, no-contact, and lifetime child-contact restrictions.

The accused, Anis Rehman, was charged with sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving a young complainant at a private daycare in 2019.

The court reviewed the evidence of the complainant, the accused, and defence witnesses, and applied the principles of reasonable doubt and credibility assessment, especially as they relate to child witnesses.

The court found the complainant credible but concluded that the defence evidence raised a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

This costs endorsement addresses the appropriate amount of costs payable by the defendant to the plaintiff following a wrongful dismissal action under the simplified procedure.

The court reviews the parties’ conduct, the complexity of the case, the offers to settle, and the applicable rules, ultimately awarding the plaintiff the maximum costs permitted under Rule 76.12.1, plus reasonable disbursements, due to the defendant’s unreasonable settlement position and litigation conduct.

The plaintiff, Matthew Deveaux, sought leave under section 17 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to proceed with claims against the Crown and other defendants, alleging a cover-up and various statutory breaches following his arrest and prosecution.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet the threshold for leave, as there was no reasonable possibility of success in establishing bad faith or malice by the Crown.

The motion was dismissed, and the action declared a nullity as against the Crown.

The court considered a wrongful dismissal claim by Jesse Lachapelle against St. Laurent Automotive Group Inc. following his layoff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the plaintiff was constructively dismissed on March 24, 2020, and was entitled to seven months’ reasonable notice, with credit for inducement and the impact of the pandemic on employment prospects.

The court rejected the employer’s arguments regarding force majeure and found that the plaintiff was not required to accept substantially altered terms of employment.

The plaintiff was not entitled to aggravated, bad faith, or punitive damages, as the employer’s conduct was not malicious or high-handed.

The court calculated damages based on the plaintiff’s actual earnings and benefits, and dismissed the claim for a construction retention bonus.