Sharman S. Bondy

The Applicant Mother sought primary residency of her son, Franky, and orders related to the Respondent Father's alleged breaches of prior orders and Franky's counselling.

The court dismissed the Mother's motion, maintaining Franky's primary residence with the Father.

The court found that Franky's stated views and preferences, his success in the Father's care, and the potential harm of forced counselling on an adolescent outweighed the Mother's claims of parental alienation and the findings of a non-court-appointed counselling centre.

The court declined to make findings of breach due to insufficient and untested evidence.

This ruling addresses a status review proceeding by summary judgment motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court assessed whether the child, "G", remained in need of protection due to emotional harm stemming from past domestic violence involving the parents and the father's ongoing actions.

While the mother had made significant progress in her ability to protect the child, "G" continued to exhibit aggressive behaviors and fear related to the father.

The court denied the Society's request for a deemed custody order, opting instead for a protection order.

This order placed the child in the mother's care subject to nine months of Society supervision, with no access for the incarcerated father until he brings a new application and demonstrates reduced risk.

The Applicant, Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the child J.M.C. was in need of protection and an order for supervision of the Mother with supervised access for the Father.

The Mother consented to the relief, while the Father opposed, seeking custody or alternative placement.

The court found the child in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, citing ongoing parental conflict and the Father's history of domestic violence and anger management issues.

The Father's opposition was dismissed, and the court granted a six-month supervision order for the Mother and specific terms for the Father's supervised access, rejecting the Applicant's request for discretionary access.

The Society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review application seeking to terminate its supervision order and impose a deemed custody and no access order for the child with the Mother and against the Father.

The Father opposed, arguing the motion was premature and impacted his access claim.

The court found deficiencies in the evidence, particularly regarding the Mother's therapeutic progress, the child's trauma counselling, and the Father's in-custody rehabilitation.

Consequently, the court declined to grant summary judgment and instead directed a mini-trial to gather specific, clarified evidence on these issues to determine the child's need for future protection and best interests.

Two accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to traffic in cannabis marijuana and related drug offences.

The court imposed sentences of six months custody for Mireault and nine months custody for Wray, both followed by two years probation.

The sentencing considered the accused's roles in the conspiracy, their personal circumstances, rehabilitation prospects, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in drug trafficking cases.

Ancillary orders included firearms prohibitions, DNA orders, victim fine surcharges, and forfeiture of property.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking.

Following a search warrant, approximately 27 pounds of marijuana was discovered in a storage locker at Guardian Storage in Windsor, Ontario, and an additional 1,794 grams was found in a second storage locker at UHaul Moving and Storage in Tecumseh.

The accused was a first-time offender, 21 years old at the time of the offence, attending university and experiencing financial difficulties.

The court imposed a sentence of six months custody followed by two years' probation, along with collateral orders including a mandatory section 109 firearms prohibition for 10 years, DNA order, forfeiture order, and victim fine surcharge.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon (a USB charger cord) against his six-year-old son.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 30 days custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 36 months probation, finding that despite the seriousness of the offence, the accused's exemplary rehabilitation efforts, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, mental health issues at the time of the offence, and strong family support warranted restraint and emphasis on rehabilitation rather than incarceration.

The court distinguished the case from Crown authorities involving offenders with criminal records and lack of remorse.

The accused was charged with an "over 80" driving offence.

The Crown relied on breath sample analysis to prove the accused's blood alcohol concentration exceeded the legal limit.

The central issue was whether the breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by section 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code to invoke the presumption of identity.

The court found multiple unexplained delays in the booking and testing procedures totalling approximately 37 minutes, including delays in completing administrative forms and notes, and a 28-minute gap between the two breath tests.

The court concluded that the totality of delays was unreasonable and that the Crown failed to establish the samples were taken as soon as practicable.

Without the presumption of identity, the Crown's case collapsed and an acquittal was entered.

The accused was convicted of possession for purposes of trafficking in marijuana following a guilty plea.

Police executed a CDSA search warrant and recovered 523.6 grams of marijuana stored in multiple containers and Ziploc bags, $2,275 in cash, three cell phones, packaging materials, and a digital scale from the accused's residence near the University of Windsor.

The accused, a 22-year-old first-time offender and university student, sold marijuana primarily to university students.

The defence sought a conditional discharge under s. 730 of the Criminal Code, arguing the accused was a young first-time offender with good character prospects.

The Crown sought a fine and probation, arguing that deterrence and denunciation were paramount and that granting a discharge would be contrary to the public interest.

The court rejected the conditional discharge and imposed a $1,000 fine payable within six months, a 12-month probation order, forfeiture of the marijuana, and a mandatory 10-year prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

A 16-year-old youth was found guilty after trial of aggravated assault as a party to the offence.

The victim, a 15-year-old, was viciously beaten by multiple youth, suffering a traumatic brain injury with subdural hematoma, brain bleed, vision loss, and permanent psychological effects.

The accused did not directly participate in the physical violence but actively encouraged and facilitated the assault through words, gestures, and conduct.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 180 days (120 days open custody, 60 days community supervision) followed by 6 months' probation, rejecting both the Crown's request for 9 months' custody and the defence's request for probation or deferred custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code and unlawful possession of a firearm while prohibited from doing so contrary to s. 117.01 of the Code.

The Crown sought a penitentiary term of three years less pre-sentence custody, while the defence sought time served.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 months, with 21 months of pre-sentence custody credited, resulting in a further 9 months in custody, followed by two years' probation.

A lifetime firearms prohibition order, DNA order, and forfeiture order were also imposed.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against his wife: assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, arising from an incident on August 5, 2013, where he threw a ceramic coffee mug that struck her arm, causing a fracture.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally threw the cup at his wife as she exited the kitchen.

The trial judge found that the accused could not see his wife when he threw the cup, did not know she would be exiting the kitchen at that moment, and threw the cup as an act of frustration to get her attention during an argument about her whereabouts over the weekend.

The court found no intentional application of force under section 265(1)(a) and no threat to apply force with present ability under section 265(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The charges were dismissed.

Two young persons pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm against a victim who suffered catastrophic injuries including traumatic brain injury with subdural hematoma, permanent vision loss, and severe psychological trauma.

The primary assailant inflicted repeated vicious kicks and blows to the victim's head and skull while the co-accused actively participated with strikes and taunts.

The assault was videotaped.

The court found both offences constituted violent offences under section 39(1)(a) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and imposed custodial sentences with probation, finding that non-custodial alternatives were insufficient given the severity of the offence, the victims' catastrophic injuries, and the offenders' poor compliance history with previous non-custodial orders.

This is a Crown appeal from acquittals on charges against a motor vehicle dealer and two salespersons for engaging in an unfair business practice by making an unconscionable representation under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.

The trial involved a complex transaction where the consumer purchased a 2011 GMC Acadia with negative equity financing, trading in a 2011 Saturn.

The Justice of the Peace acquitted all defendants after finding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that an unconscionable representation had been made.

The appellate court upheld the acquittals, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in reaching trial, alleging a violation of her rights under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charge involved assault against two children arising from an incident on November 21, 2012.

Four trial dates had been set and adjourned before the application was brought.

The court found institutional delay of approximately 12 months after accounting for inherent time requirements.

The court granted the stay, finding that the accused suffered real, actual, and inferred prejudice from the repeated adjournments and delays, which exceeded any secondary societal interest in prosecution.

Motion to change a child support order for Ashley Taylor Boivin-Smith.

The applicant mother sought to increase child support from the respondent stepfather based on his increased income.

The respondent opposed the motion and argued that his support obligations should be terminated or significantly reduced, contending that he had overpaid support and that the biological father should bear primary responsibility.

The court found that the respondent remained a parent for support purposes and that child support should continue.

However, the court rejected the applicant's request for full Guidelines support and instead applied a "top-up" approach under section 5 of the Ontario Child Support Guidelines, requiring the respondent to pay only the amount necessary to supplement the biological father's presumptive Guidelines obligation.

The court also declined to award retroactive support for years prior to 2007.

The Children's Aid Society and Ontario Children's Lawyer brought a motion to dispense with service on the respondent father in a child protection application.

The father was subject to a non-association order and had been convicted of assaulting the subject child.

The court rejected the motion, finding no jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act, Family Law Rules, or common law to dispense with service on a parent.

The court held that fundamental principles of natural justice and section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms require that a parent receive notice and an opportunity to be heard in child protection proceedings.