Regional Senior Justice D. C. Shaw

The offender, an Indigenous woman, pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter.

She assisted the principal offender in hiding the victim's body and stealing his money to buy drugs.

The court applied Gladue principles, noting her severe background of trauma, abuse, and addiction, as well as her significant rehabilitation efforts while in pre-sentence custody.

The court sentenced her to time served (credited at 27 months) plus one day, followed by three years of probation.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and prospective child support for the parties' two children.

The respondent father argued that he had shared custody and that a previous $8,000 payment settled the support issue.

The court found that the father did not meet the 40 percent threshold for shared custody prior to March 2015 and that child support cannot be bargained away.

Applying the D.B.S. framework, the court awarded retroactive child support to November 2009, resulting in a net arrears payment of $39,880, and ordered prospective shared custody support for the remaining eligible child.

The court-appointed receiver brought a motion to approve its Fourth Report, its fees and disbursements, and to amend the Receivership Order to increase the receiver's charge from $300,000 to $700,000.

The secured creditor supported the motion, and the respondent opposed it but made no submissions.

The court granted the motion, noting that the receiver's costs had increased significantly due to the respondent's opposition to a previous sale and approval motion.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion for joint custody and equal parenting time after the respondent mother left the matrimonial home with their 16-month-old child.

The mother sought to dismiss the motion as it was brought before a case conference, contrary to Rule 14(4).

The court found it was in the interest of justice under Rule 14(4.2) to hear the motion prior to a case conference, given the 2.5-month delay until the first available date.

The court ordered an interim, interim schedule of alternating days of care for each parent until the return of the motion.

The Crown applied for a review of a Justice of the Peace's decision to release the accused on a recognizance with a surety.

The accused was charged with two break and enters, one involving a severe assault.

The Crown argued the Justice of the Peace erred in law, made an inappropriate decision, and that new evidence justified detention.

The Superior Court dismissed the application, finding the Justice of the Peace properly considered the tertiary ground, the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, and Gladue principles in crafting a strict release plan with a strong surety.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assaulting his common-law spouse.

The conviction relied entirely on the trial judge's assessment of the credibility of the appellant and the complainant.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge misapprehended material evidence regarding the parties' intoxication and the physical altercation, and subjected the appellant's evidence to a stricter level of scrutiny than the complainant's.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The 65-year-old accused, a first-time offender with an otherwise exemplary background, was found guilty of possessing a large quantity of child pornography.

The Crown sought 18 months' imprisonment, while the defence sought the mandatory minimum of six months.

The court weighed the significant mitigating factors, including the accused's low risk of reoffending and positive community history, against the aggravating factor of the large collection of images.

The court sentenced the accused to nine months' imprisonment followed by three years' probation, along with ancillary orders.

The applicant sought an order to assess the accounts of his former family law solicitor, totaling over $63,000.

The accounts had been paid, and the application was brought more than two years after the final account was delivered.

The court found that the initial order obtained by requisition was a nullity as it was outside the one-month time limit under s. 3(b) of the Solicitors Act.

However, the court exercised its discretion under ss. 4(1) and 11 of the Act, finding that 'special circumstances' existed to permit the assessment.

These circumstances included the applicant objecting to the accounts immediately after the retainer ended and the significant total amount of the bills for a relatively simple family law matter.

A law firm sought orders permitting enforcement of two Certificates of Proof of Claim obtained under the former Creditors’ Relief Act by issuing writs of seizure and sale against a former client for unpaid legal accounts arising from matrimonial litigation.

The debtor argued the certificates were invalid due to breaches of the Solicitors Act, including commencing recovery proceedings while accounts were under assessment and bringing a claim within one month of delivering a bill.

The court held that proceedings under the Creditors’ Relief Act constituted an “action” for the purposes of the Solicitors Act.

As a result, the first certificate was a nullity due to breach of s. 6(4), while the second certificate was partially unenforceable because part of the claim violated s. 2(1).

The sheriff was directed to enforce the second certificate only for the reduced amount calculated by the court.

Following a family law trial between long-term unmarried spouses, the court addressed costs and the form of the final order.

The applicant had partially succeeded on a claim for unjust enrichment and was successful on spousal support, while failing to include the respondent’s pension in the unjust enrichment calculation.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act, the court emphasized the presumption that a successful party is entitled to costs and the principle of reasonableness.

The applicant sought $15,000 in costs but the court determined that a reduced award was appropriate given the mixed property outcome.

Costs of $10,000 plus HST and disbursements were awarded, with $5,000 deemed enforceable as a support order.

The plaintiff employer brought a motion seeking a declaration that its former employee was in civil contempt of a consent order prohibiting solicitation of certain clients.

The alleged breach was based on an affidavit recounting statements and an email from a third‑party client asserting that the defendant had contacted the client and obtained an order.

The defendant denied solicitation and filed responding affidavit evidence explaining that the contact related to compensation for defective furniture supplied by his new employer.

The court held that the moving party’s evidence consisted entirely of hearsay concerning contested facts and therefore breached Rule 60.11(3) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing contempt motions.

Because contempt is quasi‑criminal and requires strict procedural compliance and proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the hearsay evidence was inadmissible and there was no admissible evidence to support the allegation.

The applicant sought to quash a general warrant authorizing surreptitious entry into a commercial room used to store suspected narcotics and to exclude resulting evidence under ss. 8 and 24(2) of the Charter.

The court reviewed whether the issuing justice had reasonable grounds to authorize the warrant under s. 487.01(1) of the Criminal Code based on an Information to Obtain supported by confidential informants and police surveillance.

Applying the deferential standard of warrant review, the court held that the ITO contained sufficient credible and reliable evidence that could reasonably support issuance of the warrant.

The informant information was corroborated by surveillance and other investigative steps linking the applicant and his associate to the location.

The court found no Charter breach and declined to exclude the evidence.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking relief from child support obligations for two past periods and requesting renewed access to the child.

She asserted that health issues and a leave of absence from employment justified suspension of support for a recent period and that earlier mental health difficulties justified rescission of support for an earlier period.

The court found insufficient medical and financial evidence to establish an inability to work and also found the request to vary historical support unreasonably delayed.

The court further held there had been no material change since prior orders and a Children’s Lawyer report recommending extremely limited contact.

The motion to rescind child support and the motion for access were both dismissed.

Following the breakdown of a 26‑year common law relationship, the applicant sought relief for unjust enrichment and spousal support.

The court applied the framework from Kerr v. Baranow to determine whether the parties had engaged in a joint family venture.

It found that the applicant’s financial and domestic contributions over the long relationship conferred tangible economic benefits and that the respondent retained a disproportionate share of accumulated wealth without juristic reason.

A remedial monetary award was ordered based on the parties’ respective chattels and bank accounts, along with payment for the applicant’s half interest in the jointly owned home, but the respondent’s pension was excluded due to lack of causal connection.

The court also ordered ongoing spousal support based on the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines given the income disparity and length of the relationship.

A young person appealed a conviction for uttering a threat to cause death under s. 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following a family dispute.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to properly apply the credibility framework in R. v. W.(D.), improperly relied on demeanour evidence, and failed to adequately address conflicting testimony.

The appeal court held that the trial judge sufficiently explained why the defence evidence was rejected and properly assessed credibility, including considering motive to fabricate and the surrounding circumstances.

The court found no error in law or palpable and overriding error of fact and concluded the verdict was supported by the evidence.

Following settlement of a motion to change a prior child support order at the start of trial, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party sought full or partial indemnity costs, arguing the proceeding was necessary to obtain updated support based on the responding party’s income and to compel disclosure.

The responding party argued that the settlement largely reflected his offer and that no costs should be ordered.

The court held that the motion to change was necessary to secure proper support and disclosure, but excluded costs related to case and settlement conferences under the Family Law Rules.

The court awarded reduced costs to the moving party, enforceable as child support.

The appellant appealed convictions for assault and uttering a threat arising from an altercation with his intimate partner in a confined kitchen space.

He argued that the trial judge failed to properly apply the credibility analysis required by R. v. W.(D.) and improperly relied on credibility findings to reject his evidence.

The appellant further submitted that the conduct, even if intentional, should have been treated as trivial under the maxim de minimis non curat lex.

The court held that the trial judge correctly assessed credibility, considered the evidence as a whole, and provided alternative reasoning demonstrating that the conduct constituted a non‑consensual touching amounting to assault.

The factual findings supporting the uttering threats conviction were also supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

Sentencing decision following convictions for aggravated assault with a knife, assault of a child, unlawfully being in a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence, and breach of recognizance.

The court applied the Gladue and Ipeelee principles to an Aboriginal offender with severe intergenerational trauma, childhood abuse, addiction, and an extensive criminal record, while emphasizing denunciation and deterrence under s. 718.01 because a young child was assaulted and exposed to the violence.

The court rejected the Crown's position that enhanced pre-sentence credit should be denied and applied Summers to award 1.5 to 1 credit for 388 days in remand.

A penitentiary sentence at the low end of the reasonable range was imposed, followed by lengthy probation and ancillary weapons and DNA orders.

The plaintiffs moved to certify a proposed class proceeding arising from alleged respiratory injuries following administration of Taxotere during breast cancer treatment at a hospital.

Certification was refused because the amended statement of claim did not adequately plead material facts supporting negligence, fiduciary duty, contract, misrepresentation, or failure to warn, and because the proposed class definition was vague and overbroad.

The court held that causation, duty, standard of care, warning, and damages issues were inherently individual and lacked a workable class-wide methodology.

Given the limited number of potential claimants and the predominance of individualized malpractice issues, a class action was not the preferable procedure and the litigation plan was unworkable.

On a bail application under s. 522 of the Criminal Code by an accused charged with second degree murder, the court held that detention was not justified on the secondary or tertiary grounds under s. 515(10).

The court gave significant weight to the accused's Indigenous background and the systemic and personal circumstances recognized by Gladue, while also finding that an unusually stringent release plan with multiple sureties, house arrest, abstinence conditions, and culturally appropriate supports adequately protected public safety.

The court further rejected the Crown's position that s. 515(2)(e) required a cash deposit because the accused was ordinarily resident in Ontario and within 200 kilometres of the place of custody.

Judicial interim release was granted on strict terms.