Sarah S. Cleghorn

A custody and access application concerning one child, Haedyn Alexa Karambetsos, born March 15, 2011.

The father sought joint custody with shared residence, while the mother sought sole custody with primary residence.

The mother alleged domestic violence and claimed inability to communicate with the father.

The court found both parents equally capable of parenting, rejected the domestic violence allegations as unsubstantiated, and determined the mother's refusal to communicate was a strategic choice rather than a consequence of abuse.

The court awarded joint custody with a week-about shared residence arrangement and minimal child support.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of a 17-year-old complainant on December 17, 2014.

The Crown alleged that the accused attended the complainant's residence in the early morning hours and sexually assaulted her by touching her breast and vagina without consent.

The accused denied the allegations entirely.

The court applied the R. v. W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility and found the accused's testimony unreliable due to material inconsistencies with his police statement and implausible explanations for DNA evidence.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence as credible and found that the accused had both motive and opportunity to commit the offence.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault.

The defendant, a police officer, was charged with sexual assault arising from an alleged incident in 1986 involving a woman he had investigated during a traffic stop.

The complainant alleged the defendant contacted her early the next morning, came to her home under the pretext of needing additional information, and forced her to perform fellatio.

The defendant testified the encounter was consensual and involved only kissing and touching.

The court found both witnesses had credibility concerns but ultimately determined that while the complainant's version was more probable, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, possessing a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and breaching a probation order.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all three counts.

The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The defendant was found guilty of all three offences based on the totality of the evidence, including the specific nature of the threat, the defendant's proximity to the victim's residence, his possession of a knife shortly after the incident, and the unique identifying characteristics (name "Peter" with mother "Rebecca") that connected him to the perpetrator.

A custody and access dispute involving three children where the mother sought to retain sole custody with primary residence and the father sought custody or significant access.

The father had been absent from the children's lives for approximately three years following separation but sought to re-establish a relationship beginning in July 2015.

The court applied the best interests of the child analysis under the Children's Law Reform Act, considering factors including the children's strong bond with the mother as primary caregiver, the father's absence and subsequent re-engagement, concerns regarding alcohol consumption in the maternal grandparents' home, school attendance issues, and the inability of the parents to communicate effectively.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with expanded access to the father.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change brought by the mother seeking to relocate the child from Winnipeg, Manitoba to Victoria, British Columbia.

The court dismissed the mother's motion, finding she failed to establish a material change in circumstances.

The mother's case rested primarily on an employment offer that the court found was not bona fide but rather a strategic move.

The father, as the successful party, sought costs from the date of his offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the father on a full recovery basis from the date of the offer to settle, finding the mother acted unreasonably in pursuing litigation based on a non-genuine employment offer.

A status review hearing concerning two children in the care of a child and family services society.

The father consented to Crown Wardship with access rights.

The mother passed away during the proceedings.

The sole remaining issue was whether the children could be placed with maternal grandparents as required by statute.

The court found that while the grandparents had genuine love for the children, they lacked the necessary skills and training to meet the children's high needs resulting from severe developmental trauma.

The grandparents had also demonstrated concerning behaviors including coaching children on litigation matters, expressing negative views of the father to the children, and failing to cooperate with the society.

The court ordered Crown Wardship with access rights to the father, grandparents, and sibling contact arranged at the society's discretion.

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.