Self-represented

The reasons for judgment in this case are not available at this time.

The accused, William Gallerno, was tried for aggravated assault under section 268 of the Criminal Code.

The main issue was identification, as the victim, Ms. Assenza, could not identify her assailant.

The court considered the authenticity and chain of custody of a surveillance video showing the assault, as well as corroborating evidence from police, the victim’s husband, and subsequent police interactions with Mr. Gallerno.

Despite gaps in the chain of custody and the victim’s inability to identify the accused, the court found the video authentic and the identification evidence overwhelming, concluding beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Gallerno was the assailant.

A finding of guilt was entered.

The court considered a motion for contempt against the respondent for failing to comply with an order to vacate a property.

The applicant sought a declaration of contempt, arrest, imprisonment, and a fine.

The court reviewed the procedural and substantive requirements for civil contempt, emphasizing the need for bifurcated liability and penalty phases, and the discretionary and coercive nature of contempt powers.

The court declined to make a formal finding of contempt at this stage, adjourning the motion to allow for further notice and submissions, and to consider less punitive remedies to achieve compliance with the original order.

The appellant pleaded guilty to several offences, including possession for the purpose of trafficking in fentanyl and cocaine, and was sentenced to a global term of nine years.

He appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive and seeking a reduction based on fresh evidence of lockdown conditions and triple bunking.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the sentencing judge's reasons, noting the aggravating factors such as the nature and quantity of the drugs and the appellant's criminal record.

The court admitted the fresh evidence but declined to reduce the sentence, concluding it remained fit.

This decision addresses the retroactive child support obligations of a father for two children following separation.

The court applies the framework from Colucci v. Colucci to determine the presumptive start date for child support, the appropriateness of departing from that date, and the quantification of arrears.

The father’s failure to disclose income accurately, refusal to pay support directly to the mother, and controlling behavior led to a retroactive support order starting January 1, 2023, with arrears fixed at $15,704.

The court also discusses the limited credit the father may receive for direct payments made to the child and orders payment terms to alleviate hardship.

The applicant mother sought temporary orders for sole decision-making responsibility, primary residence, child support, and insurance-related relief for the parties’ son.

The respondent father sought sole decision-making responsibility.

The court maintained the current parenting schedule, declined to grant sole decision-making responsibility on a temporary basis, ordered child support based on the father’s most recent income, and required the father to maintain the child as a beneficiary under his health and life insurance plans.

The court also addressed costs, communication protocols, and pension disclosure.

The Ontario Court of Justice awarded costs to the mother after the father withdrew his motion to change child support terms contained in a separation agreement.

The court applied Family Law Rules subrule 12(3), which presumes the withdrawing party pays costs, and found no basis to rebut this presumption.

The father’s withdrawal at the first case conference caused the mother to incur costs preparing for the motion and case conference.

The court rejected the mother’s allegation of bad faith, finding the father’s withdrawal was a legal strategy.

The costs award was fixed at $4,000, reduced from the claimed $8,690, considering the father's limited financial circumstances.

The court allowed payment of arrears in monthly installments and ordered the costs to be enforceable as support by the Director of the Family Responsibility Office.

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of a medical malpractice action brought by Frank Papineau against Dr. Pablo Romero-Sierra and Dr. Jonny Brisebois.

The court awards the defendants substantial indemnity costs of $957,893 after a seven-week trial, finding the plaintiff's claim was without foundation and that he made unsubstantiated allegations of dishonesty against Dr. Romero-Sierra.

The court rejects arguments that the action was public interest litigation or that costs should be denied due to the plaintiff's financial circumstances, emphasizing the importance of deterring unmeritorious litigation and sanctioning improper conduct.

The court dismissed John Cipolla’s appeal from a Small Claims Court order refusing to recognize a decision of the Alliance of Indigenous Nations (AIN) Tribunal.

The court found the appeal to be frivolous, vexatious, or otherwise an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, as the AIN Tribunal is not a recognized legal entity and there was no plausible basis for its decisions to be recognized by the court.

The court also rejected arguments based on international law and Indigenous rights, finding no statutory or legal authority for the AIN Tribunal’s recognition.

This costs decision follows a 15-day family law trial concerning parenting, support, and equalization.

The court found that the father, Salvatore Ginese, had engaged in severe parental alienation and coercive control, amounting to bad faith conduct.

Although the mother, Rita Fadel, did not obtain the custody reversal she sought, the court awarded her full recovery costs for the trial due to the father's egregious behaviour, but not for the entire proceeding due to mixed success on financial issues.

The father was ordered to pay $165,000 in costs, including the cost of an expert whose involvement was rendered futile by the father's conduct.

The decision addresses cross-motions to vary interim spousal support and related security obligations following the applicant's retirement.

The court finds a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's retirement and health, reduces spousal support to $1 per month pending trial, and declines to increase life insurance security.

The respondent's motion for retroactive support is dismissed as already decided.

The court sets out a process for any further motion to transfer the proceeding and for trial scheduling.

The accused, Alex Beseiso, applied for a stay of proceedings on the basis of a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court reviewed the timeline of the proceedings, including periods of delay and the reasons for them, and found that the majority of the delay was attributable to the defence, particularly due to the accused's absence from Canada and failure to attend his trial.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

This decision concerns cross-motions by both parents, Weihai Xue and Yunzhe Lu, each seeking increased parenting time with their three children.

The court found a material change in circumstances since the parties’ May 2024 Minutes of Settlement, as the children were not adjusting well to the equal-time-sharing schedule and the parents were unable to cooperate effectively.

The court ordered a new alternating weekly schedule to reduce transitions and provide greater stability, and directed the parties to seek therapy for their eldest child and to communicate only through a co-parenting app.

The applicant mother sought both ongoing and retroactive child support from the respondent father, as well as a determination of the father's contribution to special and extraordinary expenses under section 7 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines.

The court fixed the date of separation as August 10, 2018, and, after considering the relevant factors, ordered retroactive child support from January 1, 2020, in the amount of $37,500, to be paid in installments.

The court also ordered the father to pay 72% of certain section 7 expenses, both retroactively and prospectively, and set out a detailed parenting plan and holiday schedule.

A divorce was granted.

This decision concerns a motion by Jaspreet Kaur for security for costs against Ronald Dawson in a dispute over the beneficial ownership of real property.

The court finds that Dawson failed to pay prior costs orders, appears to be a nominal applicant, and that the application is arguably frivolous and vexatious.

The court orders Dawson to post security for costs, with leave for Kaur to seek further security as the litigation progresses.

This costs endorsement addresses the quantum and entitlement to costs following the dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim for delay.

The Defendant, John Akpata, sought costs after successfully striking the Plaintiff’s claim.

The court considered the conduct of the parties, offers to settle, the reasonableness of the costs claimed, and the Plaintiff’s ability to pay.

The court fixed costs at $19,000, finding this amount fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The Crown applied for a psychiatric assessment of Lionel Brian Williams under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code, on reasonable grounds that he might be found a dangerous offender or long-term offender due to a serious personal injury offence (assault with a weapon).

The court reviewed extensive evidence including police synopses, CPIC records, and transcripts, noting Mr. Williams' long history of violent and non-violent offences, his marginalized status, and patterns of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour.

The court found the low threshold for ordering an assessment met, emphasizing the procedural nature of s. 752.1 and the importance of protecting public safety.

The application for psychiatric assessment was granted.