R. Niman

The mother brought a motion for a stay of a term of an interim parenting arbitration award that eliminated the requirement for the father to undergo portable breathalyzer testing four times per day during his parenting time.

The mother sought the stay pending her motion for leave to appeal the award.

The court applied the RJR MacDonald test, emphasizing that in parenting cases, the best interests of the children are paramount.

The court found no serious issue of law, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience did not favour a stay, as the arbitrator had found no evidence of alcohol abuse during the father's parenting time.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant father brought a motion to expand his parenting time with the parties' three-year-old child to include overnight visits, aiming for a 50/50 schedule.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, citing allegations of past family violence and requesting a mental health assessment of the applicant.

The court considered the best interests of the child under the Divorce Act, noting that while there was evidence of high conflict and some violence during cohabitation, there were no concerns regarding the applicant's parenting post-separation.

The court granted the motion in part, expanding the applicant's parenting time to include two overnights per week on an interim basis, but declined to order a 50/50 schedule to maintain stability for the child.

The accused police officer was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon arising from injuries sustained by an individual during a G20 demonstration at Queen’s Park.

The Crown alleged the officer struck the individual with a shield and baton or used excessive force while moving him.

The court considered three theories of liability based on eyewitness testimony and video evidence.

The judge found significant reliability and credibility issues with the key identification witness and concluded the video evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused struck the individual or used excessive force.

The Crown failed to establish any theory of liability beyond a reasonable doubt.