Ronald M. Laliberté Jr.

The accused was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing death after his minivan, which was positioned perpendicularly across the eastbound lane near the crest of a blind hill, was struck by a motorcycle.

The collision resulted in the deaths of the motorcycle operator and passenger.

The court found that while the accused's driving was objectively dangerous, the Crown failed to prove the requisite objective mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court concluded that the accused's conduct amounted to a momentary lapse in judgment due to his unfamiliarity with the road and the lack of warning signs, rather than a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person.

The accused was acquitted of both counts.

The applicant, Darlene D’Silva, residing in Alberta, sought to vary a 2011 child support order against the respondent, James King, residing in Ontario, under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act, 2002.

She requested retroactive and prospective increases, Section 7 special expenses, and imputation of income to the respondent.

The respondent resisted, citing frustration of access and disputing income imputation.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent ceasing to pay travel costs, which was a condition for the lower support amount.

However, the court rejected the applicant's claim for extensive retroactive support and high income imputation, finding no blameworthy conduct by the respondent and potential hardship.

The court imputed income to the respondent at $37,000 annually, effective June 1, 2018, after a 6-month period to arrange alternative care for his elderly parents, recognizing his legal duty of care under the Criminal Code.

Prospective child support was set at $534.00 per month, with special expenses shared proportionally (Applicant 53%, Respondent 47%).

No retroactive support was awarded.

The accused was tried on a twelve-count indictment alleging various acts of domestic violence against his former partner, including assault, assault with a weapon, mischief, and uttering threats.

The trial primarily hinged on credibility, with the complainant detailing multiple incidents of physical abuse and the accused denying all allegations.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court found the accused's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, while the complainant's evidence was supported by extrinsic evidence such as photographs of her injuries and prior consistent statements.

The accused was found guilty on eight counts, acquitted on three counts due to reasonable doubt, and one count was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The accused, charged with sexually assaulting his former partner, brought an application under section 276 of the Criminal Code to adduce evidence of a subsequent consensual sexual encounter with the complainant.

The accused argued the evidence was relevant to the complainant's credibility and her assertion that she feared him after the alleged assault.

The court granted the application, finding the evidence related to a specific instance of sexual activity, was relevant to the core issues of consent and credibility, and had significant probative value that was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, assault, and theft following a visit by the complainant to his home.

The complainant alleged severe physical and sexual violence, including the accused placing his fist in her vagina and shaving her pubic hair while she slept.

The accused testified and denied the allegations, claiming the complainant attacked him.

The court applied the W.D. framework to assess credibility and found significant inconsistencies and reliability issues in the complainant's evidence, exacerbated by heavy drug and alcohol consumption.

Finding the accused's evidence raised a reasonable doubt, the court acquitted him on all counts.

The accused was tried on two counts of sexual interference arising from historical allegations by a complainant who described childhood sexual touching by her stepfather over several years.

The case turned entirely on the complainant's credibility and reliability, as she was the only witness called.

The court held that significant reliability concerns arose from a late disclosure of an alleged penis-touching incident, contradictions about the sequence and significance of earlier touching, and the Crown's failure to call the complainant's mother despite the corroborative significance attributed to her evidence.

Applying the reasonable doubt standard, the court was left with a reasonable doubt and acquitted on both counts.

The respondent mother brought a motion seeking temporary sole custody of the child, Lana.

The applicant father opposed, arguing to maintain the existing parental arrangement where he was the child's primary caregiver.

The court considered the effect of a prior reconciliation on a Nunavut interim custody order, the concept of material change in circumstances, and the child's best interests, emphasizing stability and the status quo.

The court found compelling reasons to re-examine the child's best interests as a temporary measure, noting significant changes in the child's life since moving to Ontario and the mother's guilty pleas to assault charges against the father.

The motion for sole custody was dismissed, and the child remained in the father's primary care, with an increase in the mother's access time.

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.

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 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.

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 applicant Children's Aid Society sought an order making three children Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent parents opposed the application, seeking the return of the children or, alternatively, placement of the eldest child with the paternal grandparents.

The court found the children to be in need of protection due to a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and lack of parenting capacity, which resulted in significant emotional and behavioral issues for the children.

The court admitted the children's out-of-court statements under the principled approach to hearsay.

Concluding that the parents and grandparents could not meet the children's special needs, the court ordered Crown wardship without access to facilitate adoption.

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.