Pierre E. Roger

The respondents brought a motion to stay the applicant's Charter challenge to the sex offender registry pending the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in a similar case, G. v. Attorney General for Ontario.

The applicant, who was found not criminally responsible and granted an absolute discharge, argued his case presented distinct legal arguments and a more compelling factual scenario.

The court granted the stay, finding that the two matters shared significant common questions of law and fact, and that a stay would prevent inconsistent dispositions, save judicial resources, and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings without causing undue prejudice to the applicant.

Criminal trial on multiple historical allegations of sexual and physical abuse within a family, involving four complainants and a lengthy alleged period of offending.

The court focused on credibility and reliability, including delayed disclosure, internal inconsistencies, contradictions among sibling witnesses, possible collusion, and the absence of contemporaneous observations by third parties despite repeated contact with child protection, school, and medical professionals.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard and the W.(D.) framework, the court rejected the accused's evidence but held that the totality of the Crown evidence remained insufficiently reliable to prove any count beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

This decision addresses the costs following a 20-day trial concerning custody and access, where the respondent (L.) was largely successful.

The respondent sought full or substantial indemnity costs, while the applicant (P.) requested annulment or reversal of costs.

The court, applying Rule 24(1) of the Règles en matière de droit de la famille, found the respondent presumptively entitled to costs.

The court rejected the respondent's reliance on a settlement offer made during a settlement conference due to Rule 17(23) and its failure to meet Rule 18 criteria.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the respondent, reducing some claims due to shared responsibility for trial length and specific motion outcomes.

The final award was $83,960 payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, robbery, and break and enter.

The central issue was the identity of the accused as one of the perpetrators.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's fingerprints found on a drug jar at the scene, cell phone records, and the accused's prior lies to the police.

The defence presented an alibi and argued that the fingerprints could have been left during earlier, legitimate drug transactions with the victim.

The court found the accused and his alibi witness not credible due to inconsistencies and vagueness.

However, the court also found the victim's testimony to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding his memory, the identity of "TYBO" (a client recorded in his drug book), and the frequency of washing his drug jars.

Given the conflicting evidence and the victim's lack of credibility on key points, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's guilt was the only reasonable inference.

The accused was found not guilty on all counts.

This endorsement addresses costs following a motion to change child support, which the respondent brought.

Although success on the underlying motion was divided, the respondent was deemed the more successful party, entitling them to costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant's offer to settle was not more favourable than the outcome.

Considering the divided success, the reasonableness of the lawyers' rates and time spent, and the principles of costs, the court fixed costs at $2,150, payable by the applicant to the respondent.

The mother brought a motion to change a 2012 Quebec order that granted sole custody of the child to the father.

The mother had previously abducted the child to France for several years before the child was returned to the father in Canada.

The court found a material change in circumstances but dismissed the mother's request for custody or unsupervised access.

The court concluded that the mother lacked insight into the impact of her actions on the child, remained fixated on unproven allegations against the father, and posed an ongoing risk of alienation.

The father retained sole custody, and the mother was granted supervised access and supervised electronic communication.

The respondent father brought a motion to change, seeking to terminate child support for his 18-year-old daughter on the basis that she had rejected any relationship with him.

The court applied the Farden factors and found that the daughter's decision to terminate the relationship was not without justification, given the long and complex history of high conflict between the parents.

The court concluded the daughter remained a child of the marriage under the Divorce Act and was entitled to ongoing support for her university education.

However, the court found the standard Guidelines approach inappropriate under section 3(2)(b) and ordered specific monthly amounts and shared expenses, requiring the daughter to contribute to her own education costs.

The accused brought a motion to change counsel to Me Diane Condo after his previous counsel could no longer represent him for a 10-week trial.

The Crown opposed the change, arguing Me Condo had a conflict of interest because she previously represented the accused's alleged co-conspirator, who might be called as a Crown witness.

The court found no disqualifying conflict of interest, noting Me Condo received no relevant confidential information from the co-conspirator, the co-conspirator consented to the representation, and the defense proposed a plan where previous counsel would cross-examine the co-conspirator if called.

The court emphasized the accused's right to counsel of choice and the significant delay that would result if new counsel had to be retained.

The offender was found guilty of sexual assault and sexual interference against a 15-year-old victim.

The court applied the Kienapple principle to conditionally stay the sexual assault charge, finding both offences arose from the same transaction.

Following coordinate decisions, the court held the mandatory minimum sentence for sexual interference was of no force or effect.

The offender was sentenced to 9 months' incarceration and 18 months' probation, with the court declining to impose a broad s. 161 prohibition order due to the isolated nature of the offence and low risk to children generally.

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of the accused's absence from Canada for nearly ten years as post-offence conduct showing consciousness of guilt and as narrative evidence.

The accused had left Canada legally after his sexual assault charges were stayed, but before the stay was successfully appealed by the Crown.

The court dismissed the application, finding the evidence was not relevant to the accused's criminal intent, had minimal probative value, and carried a high prejudicial effect that could force the accused to testify about unrelated matters.

The court also rejected admitting the evidence for narrative purposes, as it was not required for the jury to understand the relevant evidence.

The accused, charged with aggravated assault and robbery, brought a pretrial motion to exclude statements he made to police during two interviews.

He argued the first statement was involuntary due to police trickery—specifically, the failure to disclose fingerprint evidence—and that he was psychologically detained, resulting in Charter breaches.

The court applied the Oickle and Grant frameworks, finding the first statement was voluntary and the accused was not detained, as he attended the station willingly and was free to leave.

Consequently, the second statement was not tainted, and all statements were ruled admissible.

The respondent brought a motion to stay three interlocutory orders pending leave to appeal and to consolidate the notices of motion for leave to appeal.

The court found that the order for the payment of money was automatically stayed under Rule 63.01.

However, the court dismissed the motion to stay the other two procedural orders, finding the respondent failed to establish a serious issue, irreparable harm, or balance of convenience.

The motion to consolidate was also dismissed as it would cause confusion.

Costs of $3,500 were awarded to the applicant.

The applicant sought an equalization of net family property following the parties' separation.

The respondent, who self-identified as an Algonquin, argued that the matrimonial home was exempt from provincial legislation under the Royal Proclamation of 1763 and the Daniels decision.

The court dismissed this argument, finding the Family Law Act applicable.

The court also declined to order the immediate sale or financing of the home, citing a lack of jurisdiction under section 9 of the Family Law Act at this stage.

After determining the value of the matrimonial home, household goods, and debts, and rejecting deductions for the date of marriage value of the land and inheritances invested in the home, the court ordered the respondent to pay an equalization payment of $107,252.03.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, arguing unreasonable delay.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was over 40 months.

The court deducted various periods of defence delay, including time for counsel's vacation, adjournments for subsequent charges, and a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship.

The court also deducted time as exceptional circumstances due to the tragic passing of the accused's initial counsel and the resulting second intake period.

After deductions, the net delay fell below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court also noted that the transitional exception would apply.

The application was dismissed.

Following a judge-alone criminal trial subject to a publication ban, the court considered allegations that the accused sexually touched a teenage complainant, including touching her breast and later her vagina, while he was in a relationship with the complainant's mother.

The central issue was credibility and reliability, assessed through the W.(D.) framework in light of conflicting evidence, delayed disclosure, text messages, post-event conduct, and alleged motive to fabricate.

The court rejected the accused's explanation that the complainant's complaint related to his drug use, accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and reliable, and found corroborative support in the contemporaneous text message and other surrounding evidence.

The Crown proved both sexual assault and sexual interference beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded over $1.8 million in damages for environmental contamination against one defendant but was unsuccessful against another, the court determined the costs payable by the unsuccessful defendant.

The court rejected the plaintiff's request for substantial indemnity costs, finding the defendant's conduct was not egregious.

The court applied a partial indemnity scale, reducing the fees by 10% to account for the successful co-defendant's involvement, and by a further 15% to reflect divided success on the issues and limited financial success compared to the amount claimed.

Total costs of $214,890.44 were awarded to the plaintiff.

Following a three-day trial regarding the validity of a separation agreement and child support, both parties sought costs.

The applicant claimed $13,972.05 on a partial indemnity scale, while the self-represented respondent claimed $16,865.

The court found that success was divided, as the respondent succeeded on the validity of the agreement but the applicant succeeded on the issue of child support.

Given the divided success and the unproven nature of the respondent's claimed hours and lost opportunity, the court ordered that no costs were payable by either party.

The court determined the costs of a family law application where success was divided but the respondent was overall more successful.

The applicant failed to provide written costs submissions and had failed to attend the last two days of trial.

The respondent had made an offer to settle that was more favourable to the applicant than the final order.

Consequently, the court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer and on a full indemnity basis thereafter, fixing the total costs payable by the applicant at $54,471.

The applicant brought a motion for interim child and spousal support, as well as financial disclosure.

The respondent brought a cross-motion seeking disclosure and to sever the divorce from corollary relief.

The court ordered temporary child support for one adult child conditional on proof of post-secondary enrolment, and temporary spousal support based on a significant income disparity.

Both parties were ordered to provide specific financial and medical disclosure.

The request to sever the divorce was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

Following a motion to consolidate 48 actions where the moving defendants were largely successful but the plaintiff successfully resisted consolidation of one action, the court determined costs.

Considering the divided success and a reasonable settlement offer made by the plaintiff, the court ordered the moving defendants to pay partial indemnity costs of $7,500 to the plaintiff and $5,522.91 to the successful co-defendant, Boston Pizza.