Serge Treherne

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Ryan Wood to an effective four years’ imprisonment for possession of a prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, concurrent with an 18-month sentence for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offender, a 31-year-old with a serious and related criminal record including prior firearm offences and breaches of court orders, was credited 1.5 days for each day in pretrial custody.

The court emphasized the seriousness of firearm offences, especially for repeat offenders, and considered systemic anti-Black racism as a mitigating factor but found it insufficient to reduce the sentence below the Crown’s position.

The decision reflects careful balancing of deterrence, denunciation, public safety, and rehabilitation principles.

This case concerns a dispute over decision-making responsibility, primary residence, and parenting time for two young children.

The applicant mother sought sole decision-making and primary residence, proposing reduced parenting time for the respondent father and a change in the children's school and daycare for her convenience.

The respondent father initially sought to maintain joint decision-making and equal parenting time, later seeking sole decision-making and primary residence due to the applicant's unilateral actions.

The court found the applicant's actions, including unilaterally changing the child's school and daycare and misrepresenting an expired court order, demonstrated a lack of cooperation and disregard for the children's best interests.

The court also noted the applicant's history of domestic violence against the respondent.

The respondent's efforts to address past substance abuse were acknowledged.

The court ultimately granted sole decision-making responsibility to the respondent father and ordered the continuation of equal, week-about parenting time, with the children remaining at their current school and daycare in the respondent's community.

This appeal concerned a motion to change a child support order, specifically challenging the calculation of arrears based on the child's enrollment in post-secondary education.

The appellant father argued that the lower court erred in finding the child entitled to support for periods where there was insufficient evidence of full-time educational enrollment.

The court found that while there was some evidence for certain periods, there was a complete lack of evidence for other periods (July 2018 - December 2018 and May 2019 - August 2019), constituting an error of law.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed in part, and the child support arrears owed by the father were significantly reduced.

The applicant sought certiorari quashing a preliminary inquiry judge’s decision committing him to stand trial on charges of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

The applicant argued that the committal was made in the absence of evidence on an essential element of the offence, namely the purpose of trafficking.

The reviewing court applied the test from R. v. Arcuri and held that the preliminary inquiry judge’s role is limited to determining whether there is any evidence upon which a reasonable jury properly instructed could return a verdict of guilty.

Considering the circumstantial evidence collectively, including the drugs found, cash in multiple locations, and a brief vehicle interaction consistent with drug transactions, the court found that a reasonable inference of trafficking could be drawn.

The application for certiorari was dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application alleging that two children were at risk due to a pattern of neglect and physical assault by their father.

The father subsequently brought a motion for unsupervised access to the children.

The court found that while the children have a fundamental right to maintain contact with their non-custodial parent, the allegations raised sufficient safety concerns to warrant supervised access.

The court ordered supervised access at the paternal grandparents' home, supervised by the paternal grandmother, with specific frequency and conditions, including restrictions on alcohol and drug consumption within 24 hours of visits.