Robert John Brooks

This ruling addresses an application for a complainant to testify via closed-circuit television (CCTV) in a criminal proceeding involving an indecent act.

The court granted the application, applying the "facilitate" test under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code, considering the complainant's anxiety, the sensitive nature of the allegations, and the familial relationship with the accused.

The judge also expressed concerns about the Crown's repeated failure to address the suitability of screens as an alternative testimonial aid and persistent technical failures with CCTV equipment, which cause significant delays in the court system.

Brian Graci was charged with willfully doing an indecent act in a public place, contrary to section 173(1) of the Criminal Code.

The actus reus was undisputed: Graci masturbated in a public courtyard, observed by a witness.

The central issue was the mens rea: whether "willfully" required an intent to be seen, or if indifference or recklessness as to the presence of others was sufficient.

The court, after reviewing conflicting authorities, adopted the latter interpretation, finding that Graci's actions, performed in a public area with medium traffic and facing an office building, demonstrated indifference or recklessness.

Consequently, Graci was found guilty.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences committed on July 2, 2015: assault with a weapon (metal pole), assault causing bodily harm, and threatening death.

The offences arose from a domestic violence incident involving the defendant and her former common-law partner.

The Crown proceeded summarily and sought six to nine months imprisonment followed by probation.

Defence counsel sought a suspended sentence or conditional sentence.

The court imposed a blended sentence of one day imprisonment on the threatening death charge, combined with a six-month conditional sentence on the assault charges, followed by three years probation.

The sentence considered the defendant's lack of prior record, guilty plea, bail compliance, and rehabilitative efforts, balanced against the serious nature of the offences, their commission in the presence of children, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

In a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that two children continue to be in need of protection and made an order for crown wardship with permanent placement in a kinship foster home with the maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought return of the children to her care subject to society supervision, while the father sought return to his sole custody without supervision.

The court found that neither parent could adequately care for the children due to the mother's multiple health conditions and parenting deficits, and the father's refusal to acknowledge substance abuse issues, violence, and his complete lack of contact with the children.

The court approved the society's plan for crown wardship with the children remaining in the stable kinship placement where they were thriving, while maintaining supervised access with the mother and discretionary supervised access with the father.

This is a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act involving a crown wardship application.

The respondent father, who is self-represented and receiving Ontario Disability Support Program benefits, sought a legal aid certificate to retain counsel for trial.

Legal Aid Ontario refused to issue a certificate.

The court held that the father has a constitutional right to counsel under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that all four criteria from New Brunswick v. J.G. are satisfied.

The court adjourned the hearing to allow Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General to make submissions on the court's motion to appoint publicly funded counsel.

The accused was charged with impaired operation, operating a motor vehicle with blood alcohol exceeding 80 mg/100 mL, and breach of recognizance prohibiting him from operating a motor vehicle.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging that police violated ss. 8 and 9 of the Charter by querying the vehicle’s licence plate and subsequently detaining the accused.

The court held that there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a licence plate or in information obtained from a police database regarding vehicle ownership and bail conditions.

The Charter application was dismissed.

Based on police observations of impairment and breath test results of 150 mg/100 mL, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation, over 80 operation, and breach of recognizance.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of physical harm.

The mother consented to the finding through an agreed statement of facts.

The father contested the application.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the children were at risk of physical harm while in the father's care, including: the father's misuse and abuse of prescription medications (particularly oxycodone), his involvement in a dangerous driving incident while impaired by drugs with the children in the vehicle, his pattern of "doctor shopping" to obtain controlled substances, and his physical and verbal abuse of the mother in the presence of the children.

The court made a finding that the children were in need of protection and ordered a parenting capacity assessment to proceed.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services sought costs of $3,626.32 from the applicant following a motion to change regarding child support arrears.

The applicant had challenged arrears of $14,857.35, claiming the Family Responsibility Office had misdirected funds.

The court reduced the arrears to $2,000.00 owed to the Ministry.

The applicant argued the case was complex due to FRO's fund diversion and that he was ultimately successful in reducing the arrears.

The court exercised its discretion under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and declined to award costs to the Ministry, considering the complexity of the issues, the applicant's self-representation, the absence of the recipient at multiple hearings, and the applicant's limited financial resources.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration that a newborn child was in need of protection and should be made a Crown ward for adoption purposes.

The parents opposed the motion and sought to have the child placed in their care subject to supervision.

The court found that the child was in need of protection based on the mother's presentation at birth, lack of stable housing and income, intellectual and cognitive limitations, and a parenting capacity assessment revealing significant deficits in both parents' ability to meet the child's developmental and emotional needs.

The court granted the Society's motion and made the child a Crown ward without access for adoption purposes.

Following convictions for possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking after a controlled delivery operation, the court imposed penitentiary sentences on two offenders.

The intercepted shipment contained approximately 3.8 kilograms of heroin concealed in fireplace logs.

The court considered mitigating factors including stringent pre‑sentence bail conditions amounting to house arrest, positive pre‑sentence reports, lack of prior criminal records, and cooperation with police.

The court held that wilful blindness to the nature of the drug was not a mitigating factor following appellate authority.

Given the significant quantity of heroin and the offenders’ respective roles, the court imposed substantial penitentiary terms while recognizing the lesser role of one offender.