S. Patel

The court ordered a mistrial in a sexual assault case after finding that the accused, RE, did not receive effective assistance of counsel.

The trial judge found that defence counsel's lack of competence in questioning, knowledge of law, and submissions resulted in an unfair trial and compromised the reliability of the verdict.

The decision details the evidence, procedural history, and legal principles regarding the right to a fair trial and effective assistance of counsel, ultimately concluding that no remedy short of a new trial could address the prejudice to the accused.

The defendant, Jason Franco, was charged with impaired care and control of a conveyance and having an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The court found the defendant guilty of both charges based on observations of impairment and breath sample readings.

A significant portion of the judgment critiques the outdated judicial interpretation of the "notice" requirement for breath certificates under s. 320.32(2) of the Criminal Code, arguing that in the modern era of full disclosure, formal proof of service should no longer be required.

The judge emphasized that the law should adapt to current realities and not be treated as a "game of snakes and ladders" that benefits only those who can afford to exploit procedural shortcomings.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative and to require a re-attendance.

The underlying action involves a slip and fall at the defendant's health club.

The court ordered the defendant to answer questions regarding post-accident communications about anti-slip material and inspection policies, finding them relevant to the pleadings.

The court also ordered the defendant to re-attend for a virtual examination for up to two hours to answer questions arising from undertakings and refusals.

The defendant was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The defence brought a motion under sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking to exclude breath sample results.

The central issue was whether the defendant's roadside statements identifying himself as the driver were statutorily compelled statements under section 199 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that the statements were compelled and that their use to establish reasonable suspicion for an ASD demand and reasonable and probable grounds for breath samples violated section 7 of the Charter.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence.

The applicant sought joint custody of his two biological children with the respondent.

The respondent sought custody of all three children (including her daughter from a previous relationship) and child support.

The court determined that the applicant demonstrated a settled intention to treat the respondent's daughter as a child of his family under the Family Law Act.

The court also imputed income to the applicant for child support purposes, finding his reported income unreliable based on his lifestyle, expenses, and business operations.

The court ordered child support for all three children based on an imputed annual income of $50,000.

The applicant wife brought a motion for child and spousal support retroactive to the application date.

The respondent husband acknowledged child support but disputed spousal support, with the central issue being the determination of his qualifying support income from his self-employment through E-Limika Consulting Inc. The court found the husband failed to provide adequate and corroborated documentation for significant business expenses, leading to an imputation of income.

The court ordered retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, to be paid from the husband's share of matrimonial home sale proceeds held in trust.

The applicant brought a motion seeking an interim stay and variation of prior final support orders, including reductions to child support and termination of spousal support pending determination of a motion to change.

The court reviewed the test for interim variation of a final order, requiring exceptional circumstances such as undue hardship, incongruity, or pressing urgency.

The court found the evidentiary record inadequate, noting the absence of sworn evidence from the applicant and reliance on inadmissible double hearsay.

The applicant’s requests were dismissed.

The responding party obtained limited relief permitting issuance of the children’s passports without the applicant’s consent but was otherwise denied broader relief including striking pleadings.