SCJ 2020

The moving party father brought a motion for supervised access to his children outside of a supervised access centre, which was closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

He proposed that his parents or brother supervise the access.

The responding party mother opposed the motion, citing safety concerns stemming from pending criminal charges against the father for severe domestic violence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that given the serious nature of the untested allegations, supervision by close family members was inappropriate as they might feel conflicted about reporting problems.

The court held that an independent supervisor was required and allowed the father to propose alternate supervisors.

The applicant sought an urgent restraining order against the respondent, alleging fear for her safety based on past criminal harassment, alleged violence in Peru, and a recent attempt by the respondent to serve court documents at her home.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the applicant failed to establish reasonable grounds for fear for her safety under section 46(1) of the Family Law Act, as the older incidents were too dated and the recent event did not objectively support a reasonable fear.

The court also noted that the statutory protection does not extend to pets or property, and the children were adults, thus not in lawful custody.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion seeking the return of a 14-year-old child after the respondents (mother and maternal grandparents) failed to return the child following an access visit, in contravention of a final custody order.

The court found the respondents' conduct patently unreasonable and in breach of the order, as they empowered the child to unilaterally extend the visit and failed to communicate through the required channels.

The court appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to represent the child and ordered a case conference, emphasizing that court orders must be obeyed.

The respondent brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 court suspension seeking to set aside a final order, permission to serve responding materials, and an order to prevent the applicant from depleting family assets.

The court found the matter urgent, citing potential significant financial hardship to the respondent if deferred.

The court ordered a temporary freeze on asset removal and directed the matter to a case conference, followed by a motion hearing if unresolved.

The trial addressed parenting, child support, spousal support, and property division following a short, high-conflict marriage.

The court granted the respondent sole decision-making authority for the children and primary residence, with the applicant having alternate weekend access.

The applicant's income was imputed to $60,000 (or $78,102 for 2018) for child support purposes due to intentional under-employment.

No spousal support was awarded.

The date of separation was determined as February 1, 2015, and the matrimonial home was held in joint tenancy, rejecting the applicant's resulting trust claim.

The parties, self-represented, consented to a temporary variation of their final parenting order during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The order addresses transfer protocols, communication via Our Family Wizard, daily video calls for the children, and a revised alternating 4-day parenting schedule, with initial 5-day periods for the father to compensate for missed overnights.

The order is effective until the children resume daycare, after which the original final order of Justice Bielby will govern.

The applicant, Daniel L. Thornhill, brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking primary residence of the children and specific access arrangements.

He raised concerns about the respondent, Rena Schmidt, allowing a new partner and his son to move into her home without providing information on public health precautions, particularly given one child's pre-existing health vulnerabilities.

The court found the motion urgent due to these specific concerns, but did not grant the substantive relief immediately.

Instead, it directed the parties to a settlement conference, followed by a motion hearing if no agreement is reached on interim parenting arrangements.

Barrington Grant applied for a bail review to vacate a detention order and grant judicial interim release under s. 520 of the Criminal Code.

He was charged with firearms and ammunition offences.

The Justice of the Peace had detained him primarily on tertiary grounds.

The Superior Court found that the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a material change in circumstances, relevant to both secondary and tertiary grounds.

Considering Grant's pre-existing health conditions and the proposed robust release plan including electronic monitoring and a surety, the court was satisfied that the fear of reincarceration would motivate compliance and that public confidence would not be undermined by release under strict conditions.

The application for judicial interim release was granted.

The respondent mother brought an urgent motion without notice for the return of two of the parties' children to her care, alleging domestic abuse.

The applicant father disputed the allegations and claimed the children primarily resided with him.

The court found the matter was a parenting dispute rather than an urgent issue arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, though it noted concern over the father's apparent failure to facilitate contact.

The court declined to proceed with the motion and instead directed the parties to attend a case conference restricted to temporary parenting arrangements.

The individual and corporate accused appealed their sentences for environmental offences under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, involving the failure to safely dispose of PCBs and comply with an environmental protection compliance order.

The sentencing judge had imposed significant fines and an intermittent jail term on the individual.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the sentencing judge erred in principle by relying on a precedent involving a much higher degree of moral culpability and actual harm, whereas the present case involved passive negligence and potential harm.

The appeal court vacated the jail sentence for the individual and reduced the fines for both accused, emphasizing the principle of restraint in regulatory sentencing and the distinction between actual and potential harm.

This motion sought court approval for a proposed settlement affecting the minor plaintiff, Davon Khan, and other plaintiffs, arising from a car accident.

The court reviewed the settlement allocation and contingency fee arrangement under Rule 7.08, ensuring it was fair and in the minor plaintiff's best interests, particularly given the soft tissue injuries and litigation risks.

The settlement was approved, with a net payment into court for the minor plaintiff.

The applicant sought to restrict the respondent's in-person access to their two young daughters due to COVID-19 concerns, specifically because the respondent lived with his brother, a long-distance truck driver who made weekly runs to the United States.

The court considered the public health guidelines and the specific precautions taken by the brother.

Applying the principles from Ribeiro v. Wright, the court found that the children's interests in having in-person contact with the respondent should prevail, as the household was following public health guidelines and the risk was not significantly higher than other community members.

The motion to restrict access was dismissed, and a specific access schedule was ordered.

The Bank of Montreal sought to set aside a property transfer from Samira Bibi to her mother, Hanifan Bibi, as a fraudulent conveyance and unlawful preference under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act and the Assignments and Preferences Act.

The court found that the transfer was made with intent to defeat creditors, that the mother was complicit, and that the consideration was inadequate.

The transfer was set aside.

The respondent, Barry Lee Charpentier, was charged with fraud over $5,000.

The Crown alleged a scheme where Charpentier, as Vice-President of Construction for E & E Seegmiller Limited, colluded with a sub-contractor (Chym Engineering Limited) to inflate invoices, with half of the excess funds being paid to a company owned by Charpentier's former spouse.

Charpentier denied fraud, claiming the payments were compensation agreed upon with Tim Seegmiller due to unfulfilled employment contract terms and his involvement in Seegmiller's alleged bid-rigging and other unethical activities.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the identity of the victim (E & E Seegmiller Limited as a legal entity), deprivation, and mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt, largely due to the absence of crucial corporate documents and the testimony of Tim Seegmiller.

Consequently, Charpentier was found not guilty.

The Attorney General of Ontario initiated a forfeiture proceeding under the Civil Remedies Act against property associated with the late Michael Norwood, controlled by 947014 Ontario Inc. The corporation moved for the release of $210,000 from preserved funds for legal expenses and for the conversion of the application to an action.

The court dismissed the request for legal expenses, holding that the Act only permits payment for expenses already incurred, not future retainers, and that disbursements and HST fall under the 15% cap.

The motion to convert the application to an action was deemed premature.

The court also authorized the payment of a judgment to a third-party creditor from the preserved funds.

No costs were awarded.

The accused, a First Nations man charged with second-degree murder, applied for bail.

The Crown conceded the primary ground but opposed release on the secondary and tertiary grounds, citing the strength of the case, the gravity of the offence, and the accused's poor attitude during his police interview.

The court found the proposed sureties, the accused's uncle and aunt, were adequate to supervise him under strict house arrest conditions.

Applying the Gladue factors and the St. Cloud framework, the court concluded that detention was not necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Bail was granted with strict conditions including electronic monitoring via cameras.

The applicant, a commercial subtenant operating a cannabis store, sought an urgent order for relief from forfeiture after being shut down by her landlord during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found that the application met the urgency criterion set out in the Notice to the Profession.

A case conference was scheduled for the same day, and the court urged the parties to cooperate and agree on interim measures pending a full determination.

The applicant, a 50% shareholder and operator of a pharmacy, sought an interlocutory injunction in the context of an oppression remedy application against the respondent shareholders.

The respondents had suspended the applicant's employment and changed bank signing authorities after discovering alleged self-dealing.

The court dismissed the applicant's request for broad injunctive relief that would have excluded the respondents from the business, finding it went far beyond maintaining the status quo.

The court ordered limited interim measures, including dual-signature requirements for cheques, and directed the parties to agree on a valuator for a potential buyout.

The Applicant Mother sought to continue a temporary order for primary care of Baby L. and a restraining order.

The Respondent Father sought equally shared parenting and production of child protection records.

The court, operating under COVID-19 protocols, considered the best interests of the child under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court maintained Baby L.'s primary placement with the Mother but granted the Father significant unsupervised parenting time three nights per week at the paternal grandparents' home.

The existing restraining order was rescinded, and the Father's records motion was adjourned.

The applicant sought appointment as guardian of property for her minor son, Michael, for the sale of a Quebec condominium and for the general management of his inheritance.

The Children's Lawyer, acting as Michael's litigation guardian, agreed to the appointment for the condominium sale but opposed general guardianship, advocating for the inheritance to be paid to the Accountant for the Superior Court of Justice due to risks associated with RESPs and the administrative burden of private guardianship.

The court granted the applicant guardianship solely for the condominium sale and ordered Michael's inheritance to be paid to the Accountant, finding this to be in the minor's best interests.