Shonagh Pickens

The applicant sought leave to bring an urgent motion for the partition and sale of the matrimonial home and interim spousal support prior to a case conference.

The applicant argued she faced financial hardship and needed funds to secure her own housing, as she could not stay with her parents indefinitely.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the circumstances did not rise to the level of urgency or undue hardship required under Rule 14(4) of the Family Law Rules, noting the parties had been separated for nearly two years before the application was commenced.

The respondent father brought a motion to change the custody provisions of a 2013 final order and requested a section 30 assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The applicant mother opposed, arguing no material change in circumstances, bad faith, and parental manipulation.

The court dismissed the motion for an assessment, emphasizing the long-standing status quo of primary parenting by the mother, previous consent orders, and concerns about the father's manipulation, concluding that an assessment was not warranted.

Damian Romaine Campbell was convicted by a jury of one count of simple assault, three counts of assault with a weapon, and one count of aggravated assault against his domestic partner.

The primary sentencing issue was the extent to which immigration consequences could be considered, as Campbell, a permanent resident, faced deportation if sentenced to six months or more on any single count.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of six to eight years, while the defence proposed consecutive sentences of six months less a day per count to preserve Campbell's right to appeal a removal order.

The court found that the proposed defence sentence would be inadequate and artificial, failing to meet sentencing objectives given the severity, frequency, and duration of the domestic violence.

A global sentence of four and a half years was imposed, reduced by pre-sentence custody.

The accused was charged with being a party to the offence of breach of recognizance by abetting the principal accused in breaching a condition requiring him to reside with his surety each and every night.

The court found that the principal accused did breach the recognizance condition by spending nights at a different residence from his surety.

The court further found that the accused, as surety, deliberately misled the bail court by failing to disclose her actual primary residence and intentionally encouraged the breach through her conduct of leaving the principal accused unsupervised at night at the address she had provided to the court.

The accused was convicted.