Roger Chown

This motion concerned a mobility dispute where the respondent father sought an order for the applicant mother to re-establish residency with the child in Brampton, while the applicant mother sought approval for her relocation to Toronto.

The court, applying the 'best interests of the child' principle and factors from Gordon v Goertz and Plumley v Plumley, found compelling reasons for the mother's move, including childcare and financial benefits.

The court dismissed the father's motion and permitted the child to reside with the mother in Toronto, determining that the relocation was in the child's best interests despite arguments regarding the status quo.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking an order for the child's habitual residence to be Brampton, while the respondent mother brought a cross-motion for relief related to parenting issues arising from her move to Scarborough, including the child attending school there.

The court determined that it was in the child's best interests to reside primarily with the mother in Scarborough and attend school there.

The decision considered the mother's valid reasons for moving, the unsustainability of her commute from Brampton, and the impracticality of maintaining equal parenting time given the distance and the father's inability to relocate.

The court also ordered that the child attend only one daycare due to the pandemic.

The respondent landlords moved to quash the appellant tenants' appeal from Landlord Tenant Board decisions.

The motion was based on the appeal being out of time (dismissed by a prior judge) and lacking merit as it raised no question of law, and constituted an abuse of process due to the tenants' failure to pay rent and lack of good faith.

The court found no question of law and concluded the appeal was an abuse of process, quashing the appeal and vacating the stay of proceedings.

The accused, L.H., was charged with repeated sexual assault of the complainant during their marriage.

The complainant described four incidents, which the accused denied.

Both parties presented evidence that was generally credible, but the court found minor concerns with the credibility and reliability of both.

Due to diametrically opposed narratives and insufficient corroborating evidence, the court was left in a state of doubt as to which version was true.

Applying the R. v. W.D. test, the Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.