Ronald M. Laliberté Jr.

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.

Following a motion where the moving party successfully had the responding party's pleadings regarding child and spousal support struck, the court determined the issue of costs.

The moving party sought $3,239.09 in costs, while the responding party made no submissions.

The court found the moving party was entitled to costs as the successful party and because the motion was necessitated by the responding party's disregard for court directives.

Costs were fixed at $2,500.

Dans un procès criminel pour voies de fait causant des lésions corporelles, la poursuite a demandé l’admission pour la vérité de son contenu d’une déclaration antérieure fournie par un témoin à la police.

Le témoin, présent lors de l’incident allégué, a affirmé au procès ne pas se souvenir des événements ni d’avoir fourni la déclaration.

Le tribunal a appliqué l’exception raisonnée au ouï‑dire et a analysé les critères de nécessité et de fiabilité, en se référant notamment à la jurisprudence de la Cour suprême sur la fiabilité procédurale et substantielle.

Constatant la perte de mémoire du témoin, l’enregistrement vidéo de la déclaration, la possibilité de contre‑interrogatoire et l’existence d’éléments corroborants, la cour a conclu que les critères étaient satisfaits.

La déclaration antérieure a donc été admise pour la vérité de son contenu.

The defendants, a municipality and its by-law enforcement officer, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of a negligence action arising from enforcement of a property standards by-law.

The plaintiff alleged the officer acted negligently and excessively in ordering removal of materials from his property and entering the land without a warrant.

The court held that municipal officers are immune from liability for acts performed in good faith under the Municipal Act and found no evidence of bad faith or breach of duty of care.

The defendants demonstrated that enforcement steps were authorized by statute and taken in response to a complaint, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence supporting allegations of misconduct.

Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action.