Sarah S. Cleghorn

The applicant sought to change an existing consent order to relocate with the child from Winnipeg, Manitoba to Victoria, British Columbia.

The respondent opposed the motion and sought custody of the child.

The court applied the two-part test from Gordon v. Goertz and found that the applicant failed to establish a material change in circumstances.

The court determined that all circumstances relied upon by the applicant were either known and foreseeable at the time of the consent order or did not meet the threshold for material change.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The defendant brought Charter applications alleging breaches of section 8 (warrantless search of breath samples) and section 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that the 45-minute delay at the roadside before transporting the defendant to the testing facility violated the statutory requirement that breath samples be taken "as soon as practicable," constituting a section 8 breach.

The court also found a section 10(b) breach because police failed to facilitate the defendant's expressed desire to contact counsel during the roadside delay.

However, under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court admitted the breath testing evidence, finding that while the breaches were serious, the impact on the defendant's Charter-protected interests was minimal, the evidence was highly reliable and discoverable, and society's interest in adjudicating impaired driving cases on their merits favoured admission.

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

A custody and access dispute between two parents following separation.

The father sought sole custody and limited access for the mother, while the mother sought shared parenting arrangements.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer investigated and recommended sole custody to the father with specified access to the mother.

However, after a full trial, the court found that the father had engaged in parental alienation, interference with the mother's access time, and domestic violence.

The court rejected the OCL recommendations and instead ordered a parallel parenting arrangement with rotating weekly residence of the children, finding that the father was unable to facilitate meaningful contact between the children and their mother.

The accused was charged with arson/damage to property contrary to section 434 of the Criminal Code following a fire that destroyed her trailer in the early morning hours of March 21, 2014.

The Crown alleged the accused deliberately started the fire in the wood stove to damage and destroy her common law partner's property following an argument between them.

The accused claimed she lit the fire for warmth and did not intend to cause damage.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that she made a voluntary act causing damage by fire and that she was reckless as to whether damage would occur, despite her advanced intoxication at the time.

The accused was charged with two offences under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act: (1) returning to Canada without authorization after a removal order was enforced, contrary to section 52(1); and (2) failing to appear for examination at a port of entry, contrary to section 18(1).

The accused had been issued an Exclusion Order on June 18, 2012, and deported to the United States.

He subsequently re-entered Canada in September 2012 without presenting himself for examination at a port of entry.

The Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused admitted knowledge of the Exclusion Order and his inadmissibility but chose to return to Canada anyway.

The court found guilt on both counts.