Randall W. Lalande

The respondent father sought to vary a custody order to permit the 14-year-old child to reside with him in Gatineau, Quebec, rather than with the applicant mother in Capreol, Ontario.

The child, represented by counsel from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, expressed a strong and consistent wish to live with her father.

The court found that the child had attained sufficient maturity for her age to make this decision independently, without undue influence from either parent.

The court determined that a material change in circumstances had occurred and that it was in the child's best interests to reside with her father, effective January 1, 2013, subject to resolution of outstanding issues regarding child support and access.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment contrary to section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code for conduct occurring between March 5 and March 27, 2011.

The complainant, his estranged wife, alleged that the accused repeatedly communicated with her directly and indirectly, causing her to fear for her safety.

The conduct included emails, appearing near her vehicle, leaving a broken guitar with a note on her car, and arranging for flowers to be delivered.

The court found that while the accused engaged in the conduct alleged, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether the complainant was harassed, or that her fear was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The accused was acquitted of the criminal harassment charge but ordered to enter into a recognizance to keep the peace and not communicate with the complainant.

The accused was convicted of assault causing bodily harm (as an included offence to the original charge of aggravated assault) against a newborn child within the first 30 days of life.

The child sustained serious injuries including metaphyseal fractures to both femurs, fractures to the tibia, and multiple rib fractures requiring tremendous force to inflict.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months custody followed by 2 years probation, with conditions including anger management counselling, parenting programs, and restrictions on contact with the victim's mother.

The court balanced serious aggravating factors (abuse of a child and position of trust, severity of injuries) against mitigating factors (no criminal record, employment, positive support network, participation in rehabilitation programs).

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a single motor vehicle accident on Highway 17 near Sudbury.

The Crown alleged that the accused's manner of driving—characterized by excessive speed, alcohol consumption, fatigue, and night driving—constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

The defence argued that the accused had taken appropriate evasive action to avoid a collision with an oncoming vehicle, which resulted in the loss of control.

The court found that while the actus reus of dangerous driving was established, the Crown failed to prove the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault causing maiming to a one-month-old infant.

The child sustained multiple serious injuries including rib fractures, metaphyseal fractures to the legs, a torn frenulum, and bruising to the cheek within the first 30 days of life.

Medical evidence established that these injuries required significant force and could not have been self-inflicted or caused by accidental means.

The accused was the primary caregiver during the relevant period.

The court found the accused guilty of the included offence of assault causing bodily harm, rejecting the aggravated assault charge as the evidence did not establish maiming.