Sunny N. Vincent

Mr. Raza, who fled the United States after pleading guilty to identity theft and aggravated identity theft, sought bail in Canada on an Extradition Act proceeding.

He argued that a release plan mitigated flight risk and cited health issues, including a vulnerable immune system, making him susceptible to Covid-19.

The court dismissed the bail application, finding an overwhelming flight risk due to his prior escape, sophisticated planning, and lack of ties in Canada.

The proposed sureties were deemed inadequate.

While acknowledging Covid-19 as a factor, the court found insufficient evidence of Mr. Raza's particular vulnerability or that incarceration posed a higher risk than release, especially given measures taken by correctional institutions.

Detention was also deemed necessary to maintain confidence in the administration of justice given the gravity of the offence and the strength of the prosecution's case.

This is a Status Review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order making three young children Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The children had been apprehended in December 2015 and placed in continuous foster care.

The mother opposed the application and sought the immediate return of all three children to her care, alternatively requesting a supervision order.

The court found that the mother suffers from untreated schizophrenia with poor insight and judgment, the maternal grandmother suffers from schizoaffective disorder and poses a risk of harm to the children, and the mother has demonstrated an inability to provide safe and effective parenting despite over 90 supervised access visits spanning approximately 18 months.

The court concluded that a supervision order would be inadequate to protect the children and made an order for Crown wardship with no access, finding this to be in the best interests of the children.

The accused was charged with sexual exploitation and sexual assault of a minor (E.T.) between October 2013 and June 2014, and with sexual interference and sexual assault of another minor (M.P.) on or about April 18, 2015.

The Crown sought to amend the information to extend the timeframe for the E.T. charges back to April 2012.

The court permitted the amendment and, after hearing evidence from both complainants and their mother, found the accused guilty of sexual assault of both complainants.

The court rejected the defence argument that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over E.T., finding instead that she was capable of consenting but did not.

The court acquitted on the sexual exploitation charge regarding E.T. but convicted on the sexual assault charge.

Following a four-day family law trial, both parties sought costs.

The applicant was successful in establishing the respondent's income at a higher level for support purposes and achieved some success regarding private school tuition.

However, she was unsuccessful in her claim for an unequal division of family property.

The court found that success was divided and that the applicant's conduct throughout the proceedings was unreasonable, significantly increasing the time and costs of the matter.

Consequently, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.