Robert N. Beaudoin

À la suite de condamnations pour introduction par effraction, agression sexuelle causant des lésions corporelles, voies de fait et menaces de mort, la Couronne a demandé que le délinquant soit déclaré délinquant dangereux en vertu de l’art. 753 du Code criminel.

La preuve démontrait un long historique criminel comprenant plusieurs agressions sexuelles, violences conjugales et manquements à des ordonnances judiciaires, ainsi qu’un refus constant d’assumer la responsabilité de ses actes ou de participer à des traitements.

La Cour a conclu que les critères des al. 753(1)(a) et (b) étaient satisfaits, notamment la répétition d’actes violents et l’incapacité de contrôler ses impulsions sexuelles.

Elle a également déterminé qu’il n’existait aucune possibilité réelle de contrôler le risque dans la communauté au moyen d’une ordonnance de surveillance de longue durée.

Une peine indéterminée a donc été imposée afin d’assurer la protection du public.

Following a finding of contempt and a motion to strike the defence, the successful party sought full indemnity costs exceeding $67,000.

The court considered the aggravating factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the conduct of the responding party, including findings that the responding party had deliberately misled the court and bankruptcy officials.

The court held that the contempt finding justified costs on a higher scale, namely substantial indemnity.

However, the court reduced the amount claimed to account for prior cost awards and some duplication related to a previous motion to lift a stay of proceedings.

Costs were fixed at $50,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

Following a family law motion concerning custody and access issues, the successful moving party sought costs under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The motion resulted in an updated custody and access assessment, a variation of the weekend parenting schedule, and counselling arrangements for the child, although a request for joint custody was refused.

The responding party argued there was no jurisdiction to award costs and that success on the motion was divided, emphasizing good‑faith litigation and limited financial resources.

The court held it retained jurisdiction to determine costs and found the moving party was largely successful.

Costs of the motion were fixed at $4,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable within six months.

Following a successful motion regarding the children's schooling, child care, and telephone access, the applicant sought costs on a substantial indemnity and full indemnity basis.

The respondent argued that no costs should be awarded or that they should be limited to a partial indemnity basis from the date the amended notice of motion was served.

The court found the applicant was successful and had made an offer to settle that met the requirements of Rule 18(14).

Costs were awarded to the applicant on a substantial indemnity basis from the date the assessor's report was received, fixed at $3,500 plus disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff moved to reopen a prior decision that had set aside an Anton Piller Order obtained against a former employee who joined a competitor, seeking to introduce fresh evidence allegedly showing the defendant and a third‑party competitor misled the court about future competition and misuse of confidential information.

The court applied the test for admission of fresh evidence, requiring proof that the evidence could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence and that it would probably have changed the result.

The alleged new material largely concerned post‑hearing developments, including lobbying activities, industry publications, and a later government refit contract, which at most demonstrated potential future competition.

The court held that such evidence was irrelevant to the purpose of an Anton Piller Order, which is limited to preserving evidence of past wrongdoing.

The moving party therefore failed to show the evidence would have altered the earlier decision or remedied the prior failure to provide full and frank disclosure.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking termination of child support and reimbursement of alleged overpayments dating back to when the parties’ daughters reached adulthood.

The respondent filed a cross‑motion seeking retroactive child support adjustments and contribution toward the children’s post‑secondary education expenses.

The court found the applicant had failed to provide proper financial disclosure, intentionally under‑reported income, and engaged in blameworthy conduct by avoiding contact and concealing financial information for many years.

Applying the Child Support Guidelines and the principles from S. (D.B.) v. G. (S.R.), the court imputed income to the applicant and awarded retroactive child support and section 7 expenses dating back to 2000.

The court also ordered payment of outstanding historical cost awards and directed that the sums be paid directly from the applicant’s frozen investment account.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an updated custody and access assessment under s. 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act and interim joint custody.

The parties had previously consented to a parenting order following an earlier assessment recommending joint custody and progressively increasing parenting time.

Evidence before the court described ongoing conflict between the parents and allegations of conduct affecting the child’s transitions between homes and overall wellbeing.

The court held that significant changes in the parties’ dynamics and concerns about the child’s distress warranted an updated assessment by the original assessor.

The request for interim joint custody was declined and counselling for the child was ordered.

The applicant mother brought a motion seeking to enroll the parties' two children in a public community school, while the respondent father sought to keep the older child in a private Lebanese Catholic school and enroll the younger child there.

The court considered a court-appointed assessor's recommendation that a neutral community school would ease conflict and allow both parents to be equally involved.

Finding the private school tuition financially unrealistic for the parties and noting the long commute, the court granted the mother's motion and ordered the children to be enrolled in a community school.

In family law proceedings, the court issued additional reasons following earlier reasons for decision to address an omitted issue relating to life insurance securing support obligations.

The moving party's counsel advised that the court had not ruled on the obligation to maintain life insurance as security for support.

The court clarified that the obligation to maintain life insurance was to terminate on December 31, 2014.

The additional reasons supplemented the earlier decision without altering the substantive support determination.

The applicant sought to terminate his spousal support obligations under a separation agreement following his voluntary early retirement and subsequent reduction in income.

The court found that the applicant's retirement was a reasonable decision and not made in bad faith to avoid support obligations, constituting a material change in circumstances.

To prevent financial hardship to the respondent and promote self-sufficiency, the court ordered a transitional reduction of spousal support to $750 per month for one year, followed by a reduction to $1 annually thereafter.

The applicant condominium corporation sought to evict the respondent owner and his occupant due to years of disruptive behaviour, unauthorized modifications to common elements, and threats to staff and contractors.

Despite multiple previous court orders, including the removal of the occupant and findings of contempt, the respondents continued to breach the condominium rules and court orders.

Noting the respondent owner's mental illness and the severe impact on the condominium community, the court concluded that previous orders were insufficient and ordered the eviction of the respondent owner.

The applicants sought a stay of orders issued by the respondent municipality under the Building Code Act regarding their heritage buildings, which were in an unsafe condition.

The applicants wanted to demolish the buildings without complying with the heritage permit conditions.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in preserving heritage buildings and ensuring safety.

Municipal councillors brought a Rule 21 motion to strike a defamation action arising from statements made during a municipal council meeting and alleged media interviews.

They argued the statements were protected by absolute privilege and that certain allegations were deficient or statute-barred under the Libel and Slander Act.

The court held that Canadian law recognizes only qualified privilege for statements made by municipal councillors during council proceedings and declined to extend absolute privilege.

The court also found the allegations regarding republication in the media and the statutory notice were sufficiently pleaded at this stage.

The motion to strike was dismissed.

The applicant sought exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter and to quash a search warrant obtained in a robbery investigation.

Police had obtained information from correctional officials and photographed a jacket stored with the applicant’s prison property prior to obtaining a warrant.

The court held the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in personal effects stored under the control of correctional authorities and that any privacy interest in the property record was minimal.

Even if a breach occurred, it was technical and minor and the Grant factors did not justify exclusion.

The warrant remained valid on the totality of the evidence and the Garofoli application failed.

Following a successful motion enforcing the terms of a separation agreement, the moving party sought full recovery of legal fees and disbursements.

The court considered Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and allegations that the responding party acted unreasonably and in bad faith by refusing to comply with the agreement, ignoring disclosure orders, avoiding service, and failing to participate meaningfully in the proceedings.

The responding party did not provide submissions on costs despite being granted an extension.

The court found the conduct abusive and indicative of bad faith.

Full recovery costs of $8,570.49, including HST, were ordered payable immediately.

Following a successful jurisdiction and crown immunity motion, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court considered allegations of abusive conduct by the self‑represented plaintiffs, including abusive phone messages, disorganized pleadings, and scandalous allegations against parties, counsel, and courts.

The defendants argued that the complexity of crown immunity issues and the plaintiffs’ conduct significantly increased litigation costs.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ conduct justified substantial indemnity costs.

Costs of $23,896.92 were awarded to the defendants.

A former senior employee moved to set aside an ex parte Anton Piller Order obtained by his former employer after he resigned and joined a competing shipbuilding company.

The employer alleged the employee had downloaded thousands of pages of confidential documents and might misuse them in connection with government shipbuilding bids.

On review, the court held that the stringent requirements for an Anton Piller order were not met, particularly the requirements of very serious damage and a real risk that evidence would be destroyed.

The court also found that the moving party had failed to make full and frank disclosure on the ex parte motion, including misstatements regarding an alleged competing government bid and the competitive relationship between the companies.

Given the absence of serious harm, the availability of less intrusive remedies, and the disclosure deficiencies, the Anton Piller order was set aside.

Following a family law trial in which the mother obtained sole custody and primary residence of the child, the applicant sought costs of $10,000.

The court considered Rule 18 of the Family Law Rules and the parties’ conduct throughout the litigation.

The evidence demonstrated that the respondent’s inflexibility and litigation posture necessitated the trial and compelled the applicant to retain counsel.

The court found the applicant had been successful and that the claimed costs were reasonable in the circumstances.

The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $10,000 in costs forthwith.

Following a prior decision finding the plaintiff in contempt of court for breaching an order restricting communications with the defendants, the defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court noted that the plaintiff left numerous lengthy abusive voicemail messages in breach of a court order and had also attempted to bring an unmeritorious cross‑motion for contempt.

The court found that the plaintiff’s conduct unnecessarily lengthened the proceeding and significantly increased the defendants’ legal costs.

Applying principles governing substantial indemnity costs in cases involving vexatious or abusive litigation conduct, the court concluded that such elevated costs were warranted.

Costs of $14,981.47 were awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis.

Following a motion determining that a child was habitually resident in Quebec and that Ontario lacked jurisdiction over custody and access, the court addressed costs.

The successful party sought costs on either a partial or substantial indemnity basis under Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court applied the presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs and considered the factors in Rule 24(11), including complexity, conduct of the parties, and time spent.

Finding the issue required court intervention but involved no unreasonable behaviour, the court awarded modest partial indemnity costs.