P. J. Jones

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship with no access for a 6.5-year-old child with severe behavioural and mental health needs, arguing he was adoptable.

The grandmother sought the child's return or, alternatively, access.

The court found the child could not safely be returned to the grandmother and ordered Crown wardship.

However, the court rejected the Society's plan for adoption, finding the child required long-term residential treatment and was not currently adoptable.

The court granted access to the grandmother and sister, finding the relationship was meaningful and beneficial, and that access would not impair foreseeable opportunities for adoption.

The applicant mother sought sole custody of the parties' child, no access for the respondent father, and a restraining order.

The father cross-applied for custody or access, alleging the mother's new partner was physically and sexually abusing the child.

The court held a voir dire on the admissibility of the child's out-of-court statements tendered by the father, finding they did not meet threshold reliability under the principled exception to hearsay or the business records exception.

Finding no credible evidence of abuse and noting the father's extreme, uncontrolled hostility and abusive behaviour, the court granted sole custody to the mother, denied the father access, rescinded child support arrears due to inability to pay, and issued a final restraining order.

The young person was charged with possession of cocaine and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The police approached the young person on the street, at which point he tossed a baggie of crack cocaine into the bushes.

The young person brought a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention under section 9 and unreasonable search under section 8, claiming the police conducted an invasive street search.

The court rejected the young person's version of events, finding the police interaction did not constitute a detention until the drugs were discovered, and the subsequent search was a lawful search incident to arrest.

The Charter application was dismissed and a finding of guilt was entered on both charges.

The accused, a 13-year-old youth, was arrested for robbery and placed in a police cruiser.

The arresting officer read him standard adult rights to counsel but failed to advise him of his enhanced rights under s. 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

After 36 minutes in custody, the youth made two spontaneous inculpatory statements.

The Crown sought to admit the statements under s. 146(3) of the YCJA.

The court found the statements were voluntary and spontaneous, but ruled them inadmissible because the officer had a reasonable opportunity to comply with s. 146(2) during the 36-minute period but failed to do so due to a lack of awareness of the YCJA provisions.