Robert Guy Julien

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for extended society care for two First Nations children with special needs.

The children were removed from their father's care following disclosures of inappropriate touching, though the court could not conclude on a balance of probabilities that the father was the perpetrator.

The court found the children in need of protection due to a failure to provide treatment, emotional harm, and risk of emotional harm stemming from the parents' residential instability, the mother's unaddressed alcohol addiction, and exposure to domestic violence.

The court ordered the children placed in extended society care, finding that neither parent nor the maternal grandmother could provide a safe and stable environment.

Specified access was granted to both parents and the children's First Nations band.

In a child protection proceeding, the Society sought to introduce 45 out-of-court statements made by two children to various individuals, including social workers, a foster mother, a teacher, and therapists.

A voir dire was held to determine the admissibility of these hearsay statements.

The court found that it was reasonably necessary to admit the statements without requiring the children to testify, given their age, special needs, and history of trauma.

Applying the principled approach and traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule, the court assessed the threshold reliability of each statement.

Ultimately, the court admitted some statements for the truth of their contents, some for the children's state of mind, some for narrative, and excluded others where the prejudicial effect outweighed the probative value or threshold reliability was not met.

The defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully obtaining summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs' action as statute-barred.

The plaintiffs argued their conduct was reasonable and that costs should be limited.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, finding the plaintiffs' conduct did not warrant it and that the case raised an important legal question regarding limitation periods.

Costs were fixed at $20,000 payable by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

The plaintiffs sought damages for negligence related to a soil bearing capacity report.

The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court found that the plaintiffs had discovered the material facts giving rise to their claim by October 2016, more than two years before commencing the action in January 2019.

The court rejected arguments that expert reports or ongoing discussions with the defendants and their insurer postponed the discoverability date, emphasizing that certainty of causation is not required and settlement negotiations do not extend limitation periods.

The motion for summary judgment was granted, and the action was dismissed as prescribed.

The applicants sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing their motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding.

The applicants had sought to dismiss the protection application on the basis that the child was over 18 years old at the time of apprehension.

The motion judge concluded that the child's age could not be determined summarily due to contradictory evidence and directed the matter to trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding the applicants failed to meet the test under Rule 62.02(4).

There were no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the order, no procedural unfairness, and the issue was not of general importance.

The offender was convicted of possession of a large quantity of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking after police discovered approximately 29 pounds in the trunk of his vehicle during a highway stop.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or, alternatively, an intermittent custodial sentence followed by probation, emphasizing the offender’s role as a single parent and the passage of time since prior offences.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 12–15 months given the offender’s prior trafficking convictions and the substantial value of the drugs.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence were the primary sentencing objectives and that a conditional sentence was inappropriate for a repeat offender involved with a large quantity of drugs.

A custodial sentence of nine months’ imprisonment followed by two years’ probation was imposed.