Pius Lekwuwa Okoronkwo

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion within a status review application seeking to place two children (ages 9 and 7) in the temporary care and custody of their maternal grandfather in the Cayman Islands, subject to supervision.

The father opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking placement of the children with himself and his partner.

The court granted the society's motion, finding that the children had been in foster care for nearly two years and that the father had not met his onus of establishing that the best interests of the children required a change in their care.

The maternal grandfather had demonstrated strong parenting skills with the two younger siblings and had a positive home study.

The court ordered placement with the maternal grandfather effective August 29, 2015, with telephone and Skype access to the father, his partner, and the paternal grandmother.

The accused was charged with fraud over $5,000 contrary to s. 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code after obtaining accounts receivable financing from a factoring company through false representations.

The Crown alleged the accused impersonated a purported majority shareholder and corporate officer to secure financing based on fabricated receivables and misrepresentations about corporate ownership.

Evidence included witness identification, banking records, ATM surveillance images, and testimony from a corporate signatory showing the accused controlled the company and received most of the advanced funds.

The court found the accused intentionally misrepresented his identity and corporate structure to induce the advance and diverted the funds for personal benefit.

The court concluded the Crown proved deceit, deprivation, and fraudulent intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

During a criminal trial for fraud over $5,000, the Crown sought to admit statements allegedly made by the accused to a police detective while in custody.

A voir dire was held to determine whether the statements were voluntary.

The accused testified that he only spoke after being told that his girlfriend had been arrested and could face jail if he did not cooperate.

Given the absence of a recording and conflicting evidence regarding what the officer said, the court found a reasonable doubt as to whether an inducement had been made.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary, and the statements were ruled inadmissible.