Ronald M. Laliberte Jr.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and prospective child support arrears from the respondent father, alleging underpayment since 2016.

The respondent father sought reimbursement for alleged overpayments and a variation to shared parenting time.

The court granted the applicant's claim for $31,434 in retroactive child support arrears, finding the respondent's alleged overpayments and in-kind contributions did not offset the underpayment.

The court dismissed the respondent's request for shared parenting, maintaining the mother as the primary caregiver with increased but progressive parenting time for the father, and granted the mother final decision-making authority due to high conflict.

The court also set ongoing child support and special expenses.

This is a costs endorsement following a motion and cross-motion where the court stayed assessment orders pending a negligence action.

The applicant argued the granted relief was not sought, but the court clarified that a stay was requested by the respondent and affirmed its inherent power to stay proceedings under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The court determined that costs for the interlocutory motions should be "in the cause" and reserved for the trial judge, citing the intertwined nature of the issues with the negligence action and the many possible outcomes.

The plaintiff, a 53-year-old pharmacist with 16 years and 3 months of service, brought a summary judgment motion for wrongful dismissal damages against her former employer.

The employer conceded dismissal without cause, with the dispute centering on the reasonable notice period and associated damages.

The plaintiff sought 23 months' notice, while the defendant argued for approximately one month per year of service.

The court considered factors such as age, length of service (including a short break), character of employment, availability of similar employment, and mitigation efforts.

The Applicant law firm sought assessment of outstanding accounts.

The Respondent client brought a cross-motion to stay the assessment proceedings pending the outcome of a negligence action against the law firm.

The court granted the stay, finding that the negligence action raised serious allegations, involved significantly higher damages, and its outcome would likely determine the assessment, thus avoiding multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings.

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, seeking extended society care for 11-year-old E.L. due to the mother's chronic mental health and substance abuse issues.

The mother sought the child's return under a supervision order.

The court found E.L. remained in need of protection, citing the mother's long history of relapses, inconsistent follow-through with treatment, and the significant emotional harm already suffered by the child.

Giving substantial weight to the child's expressed wishes for extended care, the court ordered extended society care with continued access to the mother and sister, rejecting the mother's plan as a "trial run" with the child's life.

The accused, K.D.B., was charged with sexual assault, administration of a stupefying substance (lorazepam), and breaches of undertaking and firearm prohibition.

The Crown withdrew two firearm-related counts.

The complainant testified that the accused provided her with a pill for anxiety, after which she experienced severe heaviness and memory loss, waking up next to the accused with semen on her back.

The accused denied the allegations, presenting an alibi and challenging the complainant's credibility.

The court found the accused not credible due to inconsistencies, exaggerations, and failure to call corroborating witnesses.

The complainant was found credible and reliable, supported by expert toxicological evidence confirming lorazepam in her system consistent with her timeline and described effects.

The court concluded that the accused intentionally administered lorazepam to facilitate sexual assault.

K.D.B. was found guilty of sexual assault, administration of a stupefying drug, and breach of undertaking and firearm prohibition.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking a temporary order for joint custody and a shared parenting arrangement for three of the children.

The respondent mother brought a cross-motion seeking to maintain the existing parental arrangement.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion and granted the respondent's cross-motion, finding no compelling reasons to disturb the status quo, which had been in place since separation and was supported by previous consent orders.

The court emphasized the importance of stability for children and the inability to make credibility findings on conflicting affidavit evidence at an interim motion.

La requérante mère a demandé une modification de la structure parentale pour obtenir la garde exclusive en raison du manque de coopération de l'intimé père et de son non-respect d'une ordonnance antérieure.

L'intimé père s'est opposé à cette demande et a sollicité une garde partagée ainsi qu'une réduction de la pension alimentaire.

Le tribunal a constaté une relation parentale conflictuelle et problématique, rendant potentiellement la garde conjointe inopérante.

Une évaluation par le Bureau de l'avocat des enfants a été ordonnée pour obtenir des preuves objectives.

En attendant, le tribunal a rendu des ordonnances définitives concernant l'assurance vie du père, le maintien de la pension alimentaire à 1 000 $ par mois, et l'octroi de 768 $ d'arriérés pour dépenses spéciales et extraordinaires à la mère.

Des ordonnances provisoires ont également été émises pour l'accès estival, les méthodes de communication et les modalités d'échange des enfants.

The applicant brought a motion for contempt against the respondent for alleged breaches of two temporary orders concerning financial disclosure, payment of home utilities and costs (including mortgage and property taxes), and reinstatement of property insurance.

The court reviewed the allegations against the high standard for contempt, which requires clear and unequivocal orders, deliberate and willful disobedience, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that the applicant failed to establish contempt beyond a reasonable doubt for any of the alleged breaches, noting ambiguities in the orders, the applicant's own non-compliance with financial disclosure rules, and the respondent's efforts to comply.

The motion for contempt was dismissed, and the respondent was given further orders regarding property taxes.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the accused, who pled guilty to multiple domestic violence offences including criminal harassment, forcible confinement, and assault with a weapon against his former girlfriend.

The accused had a lengthy history of violence against intimate partners and multiple mental health diagnoses.

The court found that the accused met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, noting a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour showing a failure to restrain his behaviour and a substantial degree of indifference to the consequences.

The court concluded that the risk could not be adequately managed in the community and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

The respondent parents in a child protection proceeding brought motions seeking a defined access schedule and the removal of the children's aid society's discretion regarding access.

The children had been apprehended twice, and two of the parents were facing criminal charges related to the care of the children.

The court ordered that access proceed according to a defined schedule but preserved the society's discretion to vary the schedule when necessary to promote the children's best interests, protection, and well-being.

The accused was charged with fraud, uttering forged documents, and falsifying employment records.

He brought an application under section 24(1) of the Charter seeking a stay of proceedings due to an infringement of his section 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of the trial was 45.5 months.

After deducting defence delay, the net delay was 38 months, which exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court found no exceptional circumstances or transitional exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was entered.

The plaintiff sought partial summary judgment for wrongful dismissal damages against her former employer.

The defendant opposed, arguing that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly concerning the contextual analysis of just cause for dismissal, the plaintiff's state of mind regarding the disclosure of confidential information to her lawyer, and the risk of duplicative proceedings and inconsistent findings if partial summary judgment were granted.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding that the evidentiary record was insufficient for a fair and just determination on the merits and that a full trial was necessary to resolve the complex factual and legal issues, including the employer's broader grounds for termination beyond those initially stated.

The plaintiff, an insurance broker, was summarily dismissed by his employer.

He sued for wrongful dismissal, special damages, and compensation for vested business.

He also sued the principal broker for conspiracy, intimidation, and slander.

The employer counterclaimed for breach of contract and fiduciary duty due to the plaintiff soliciting clients.

The court found the dismissal was without just cause, awarded damages in lieu of notice and for vested business (reduced by the plaintiff's breach of non-competition and fiduciary duty).

The claims for special damages, conspiracy, intimidation, and slander against the principal broker were dismissed.

The accused, Sawatis Thurston, was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement.

The complainant, S.D., alleged that Thurston lured her to his apartment under the pretense of giving her headphones and then sexually assaulted her.

Thurston presented an alibi defense, claiming he was in Quebec at his mother's residence at the time of the alleged incident, and denied the allegations.

The court, applying the R. v. W.D. framework, found Thurston's alibi and explanations for his inconsistent police statement to be incredible and unreliable.

The complainant's testimony was found credible and reliable, supported by extrinsic evidence and similar fact evidence from a prior sexual assault conviction involving a similar modus operandi.

The court rejected the defenses of consent and honest belief in consent, finding no air of reality to them.

Thurston was found guilty on both counts.

The applicant sought a retroactive and prospective variation of child support and retroactive section 7 special expenses.

The court determined the respondent's income for ongoing and retroactive child support, setting the retroactive start date to October 1, 2013, based on effective notice.

The respondent's claim of undue hardship was rejected due to insufficient evidence.

The applicant's claim for retroactive section 7 expenses was denied due to lack of receipts and failure to establish necessity.

However, the respondent was credited for cell phone expenses paid for the child.

The court ordered retroactive child support of $24,634.00 and ongoing monthly child support, along with proportionate sharing of post-secondary education costs and maintenance of a life insurance policy.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the applicants' appeal under the Building Code Act.

The respondent, Morrisburg Dock Expansion Inc., sought substantial indemnity costs, while the applicants argued for a significantly lower amount, claiming public interest litigant status and citing issues with their former counsel's conduct.

The court found the applicants did not meet the high threshold for public interest litigants and that their conduct, through counsel, had unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings.

Considering the principles of indemnity, settlement encouragement, and sanctioning inappropriate behavior, the court awarded the respondent $121,692.23 in costs, payable within three months, acknowledging the amount was significant but justified by the respondent's success and the applicants' conduct.

The applicant brought a pre-trial Charter application seeking to exclude evidence obtained during a smuggling investigation on the St. Lawrence River.

Police officers detained the applicant on a dock but failed to inform him of the reasons for his detention before arresting him for obstruction when he attempted to walk away.

The court found the detention was arbitrary and the subsequent arrest unlawful, violating sections 9 and 10(a) of the Charter.

Consequently, the search incident to arrest violated section 8, and the ID, currency, and fingerprints seized from the applicant were excluded under section 24(2).

However, the court found no section 8 violation regarding the search of a nearby boat that yielded marijuana, as the applicant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the vessel.

The parties brought cross-motions in a family law proceeding following a 25-year marriage.

The respondent sought to sever the divorce claim from corollary issues, which was dismissed as he failed to prove the applicant would not be disadvantaged regarding health benefits.

Due to ongoing disclosure disputes, the court ordered a structured process for both parties to exchange missing financial information.

The applicant's claim for retroactive spousal support was dismissed due to an insufficient evidentiary record.

However, the court found a prima facie entitlement to interim spousal support based on compensatory and non-compensatory factors, ordering the respondent to pay $2,587.50 per month.

The respondent was also ordered on consent to designate the applicant as a life insurance beneficiary.

The Attorney General brought a civil forfeiture application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 seeking forfeiture of $44,425 seized from a camping trailer during execution of a search warrant.

Police located cocaine, marijuana, cutting agents, digital scales, packaging materials, and large bundles of cash, and ion testing showed cocaine traces throughout the trailer.

The responding owner asserted the money was lawfully derived from cash automobile sales and stored in the trailer due to personal and financial circumstances.

The court admitted expert evidence linking the packaging and denominations of the cash to drug trafficking and found the respondent’s explanation not credible.

On the balance of probabilities, the court held the currency constituted proceeds and/or an instrument of unlawful activity related to drug trafficking and ordered forfeiture to the Crown.