Pierre Plourde

The accused was charged with assault, mischief, and breach of probation following an altercation with his former mother-in-law during a child access exchange.

The court applied the W.(D.) test to assess conflicting testimony between the complainant, the accused, and the accused's eight-year-old daughter.

Finding the daughter's testimony compelling, the court concluded the complainant initiated the physical contact, raising a reasonable doubt on the assault charge.

The court acquitted the accused of breach of probation, finding his verbal tirade did not breach a legal obligation, and acquitted him of mischief due to insufficient evidence.

The Durham Children’s Aid Society brought without-notice motions (14B Motions) to correct an error in a temporary order, seeking to change temporary care and custody to the Society, which would retroactively trigger a 24-month wardship time limit.

The Respondent Mother's counsel brought an oral motion to strike these 14B Motions and supporting affidavits.

The court found that the Society's actions were procedurally unfair, as the change would cause substantive prejudice to the Respondent Mother and she had not been noted in default.

The Society's 14B Motions were dismissed.

The mother (J.L.B.) brought a motion for various temporary orders, including the return of her child to her care under a supervision order.

While the placement of the child with the mother was agreed upon, three supervision terms and one access term remained in dispute.

The court imposed a term requiring the mother to have an alternate caregiver when using marijuana.

It rejected the Children's Aid Society's policy of an absolute ban on corporal punishment, instead applying the Supreme Court of Canada's analysis of s. 43 of the Criminal Code, which permits mild, corrective physical discipline under specific circumstances.

The court also rejected the mother's request to impose supervision terms directly on the 9-year-old child and affirmed the mother's autonomy in deciding access arrangements with extended family, requiring her to consider the child's views.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer also participated in the hearing.

A ruling on spousal privilege in a preliminary inquiry concerning charges of murder and assault with a weapon.

The court determined that the defendant's common-law spouse was a competent and compellable witness despite spousal privilege protections under s. 4 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The court applied the common-law exception to spousal incompetence where surrounding circumstances disclose a threat to the person, liberty, or health of the witness spouse.

The court also addressed jurisdictional issues regarding the joinder of murder and assault charges under s. 589 of the Criminal Code.

A costs endorsement in a family proceeding addressing the applicant’s bill of costs following earlier orders.

The applicant sought recovery of legal fees, disbursements, and HST calculated using Legal Aid tariff rates and including time billed by multiple office staff.

The court endorsed the reasoning that staff time such as secretaries or non‑articling students generally constitutes law office overhead and should not be separately recoverable in costs awards.

While accepting the Legal Aid tariff rates and allowing compensation for a law clerk and paralegal, the court declined to deduct earlier costs awarded on a different basis and adjusted the claimed amounts accordingly.

The court fixed the total costs payable to the applicant after deductions.