Richard Stone

The applicant brought an urgent motion seeking release of funds from accounts frozen by prior court order in order to pay legal fees for an upcoming trial management conference and trial in a child support variation proceeding.

The court found no urgency justifying the short notice motion and adjourned it to permit the respondent to file responding materials.

In assessing whether interim release of funds would be appropriate, the court reviewed principles governing partial distributions of funds held pending family law determinations, emphasizing that a parent’s obligation to support children takes priority over payment of legal fees.

The court conducted a provisional analysis of potential child support arrears and section 7 expenses and determined that further financial disclosure from both parties was required before considering any release of funds.

The father brought a motion seeking sole custody and restricted access for the mother following the parties’ separation and ongoing disputes over parenting time.

The mother brought a cross‑motion seeking sole interim custody and equal parenting time after she unilaterally retained the children.

The court found no clear basis to prefer one parent over the other pending an investigation by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

An interim order for joint custody was granted with equal parenting time on a rotating weekly schedule during the summer.

Issues of child support were adjourned pending further submissions.

The accused, a youth, was charged with assault and uttering a death threat arising from an incident at his high school.

The Crown's case rested on the testimony of two student witnesses who provided consistent accounts of the accused threatening to stab the complainant and make his family watch his death, followed by a physical assault involving grabbing, pushing, and slapping.

The accused testified that the complainant was the aggressor and initiated the physical confrontation without provocation.

The court found the Crown witnesses credible and reliable, while finding the accused's testimony illogical, exaggerated, and contradicted by external evidence.

The court rejected the defence submissions that the incident was consensual and that the threat was not proven, finding both charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following separation after an eight‑year marriage with three children, the applicant commenced proceedings after the respondent unilaterally reduced child and spousal support agreed to in minutes of settlement.

The principal issue at trial was the respondent’s income for support purposes, where evidence showed undeclared gratuities and reduced post‑separation employment.

The court found the respondent intentionally under‑employed and imputed income based on historical earnings and earning capacity.

Child support was recalculated based on imputed income, and spousal support continued at the amount agreed in the parties’ settlement.

The applicant’s claim for equalization of alleged missing cash kept in the matrimonial home was dismissed for insufficient proof.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault of a 19-year-old passenger.

The Crown alleged that after dropping off the passenger's friend, the accused rubbed the complainant's thigh, undid her belt, and placed his hand inside her shorts without consent.

The accused claimed there was a consensual arrangement whereby the complainant agreed to expose her breasts in exchange for a free cab ride, and that he therefore had consent to touch her.

The trial judge rejected the accused's evidence as fabricated and inconsistent, finding that the complainant's silence and fear did not constitute consent.

The judge convicted the accused, finding no air of reality to the defence of mistaken belief in consent.