Susan G. Himel

This family law trial addressed property equalization, specifically the treatment and payment of a Mahr (dowry) agreement, alleged spousal debts, and post-separation adjustments.

The court granted a divorce and ruled that the Mahr, a domestic contract for 356 Bahar Azadi gold coins, must be included in the Net Family Property (NFP) equalization and valued in Canadian dollars as of the separation date, not as specific performance of gold coins or at current value.

The court rejected one of the husband's alleged debts but accepted another, determined the value of the wife's car, and ordered shared liability for the husband's post-separation rent and the Okanagan property renovation costs.

The husband was also ordered to pay the wife 50% of the tenant's rent collected.

Ultimately, the wife was ordered to pay the husband a net sum of $3,800, and the husband was awarded $45,000 in costs due to the wife's unreasonable position on the Mahr issue.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The Crown sought a 7-year global sentence, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the large quantities of highly addictive drugs and the offender's prior related record while on parole.

A global sentence of 6 years was imposed, reduced to 4 years and 4 months after applying credits for pre-sentence custody, harsh lockdown conditions, and restrictive bail conditions.

The accused, charged with child pornography offences and breach of a conditional sentence, applied for release on a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a release plan involving two sureties, house arrest, and electronic monitoring.

The court found that the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention were met, given the accused's significant criminal record for similar offences, the substantial likelihood of reoffending, and the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The application for release was dismissed and continued detention was ordered.

Awaleh Ismail Hassan pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded restricted firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, stemming from a shootout where his friend was killed and he was injured.

The Crown sought a sentence of three years and six months imprisonment, while the defence requested a suspended sentence or time served.

The court considered the paramount principles of denunciation and deterrence for gun-related crimes, alongside significant mitigating factors including the accused's guilty plea, remorse, difficult background, lack of relevant criminal record, family support, and the harsh conditions of his pre-sentence custody, including medical neglect and the impact of anti-Black racism.

The court sentenced Mr. Hassan to two years less one day imprisonment, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in one additional day of imprisonment followed by two years probation.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapon prohibition and a DNA order.

The accused, Nehemy Yogo, pleaded guilty to possession of a prohibited firearm without a licence or registration, contrary to section 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The firearm, a fully automatic Glock 23 Gen 4, was found in his bedroom after he displayed it to intimidate a driver over an unpaid debt.

The Crown sought a three-year imprisonment sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence, citing mitigating factors such as the accused being a first offender, his guilty plea, remorse, strong family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions due to COVID-19 lockdowns.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day imprisonment, to be served as a conditional sentence, followed by two years of probation.

Credit for pre-sentence custody was granted for 237 days, including an additional 60 days for harsh conditions.

A lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture of the firearm were also ordered.

The accused, Efren Chimbo, pleaded guilty to multiple sexual offences, including sexual assault, possession of child pornography, making surreptitious visual recordings, and making child pornography, involving young female models.

The Crown sought a global sentence of four years imprisonment, while the defence requested a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the abuse of persons under 18, grooming, and violation of privacy, alongside mitigating factors including the guilty plea, lack of relevant criminal record, community support, and compliance with bail conditions.

Applying the principles of denunciation and deterrence, particularly for offences involving children, the court determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate and imposed a global sentence of 2.5 years imprisonment, along with various ancillary orders.

The accused, Royburn Dickson, pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the violence, the accused's position of trust as the victim's former partner and father of her children, and the victim's pregnancy at the time of the offence.

Mitigating factors included the accused's lack of a criminal record, his guilty plea, consistent financial support for his children, the victim's expressed forgiveness, and his compliance with judicial interim release conditions.

The court imposed a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and noting the importance of conditional sentences in addressing the over-incarceration of Black offenders.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police found 200 grams of cocaine, cash, and drug paraphernalia in a safe in his bedroom.

The offender was a 24-year-old first-time offender who had complied with bail conditions and made significant rehabilitative efforts, including completing his electrician apprenticeship.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, finding that exceptional mitigating circumstances warranted a sentence outside the usual range, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The Children and Family Services for York Region (the Society) initiated a protection application seeking temporary care and custody of a 16.5-year-old child with complex needs, citing the child as in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The family, including the paternal grandfather (custodian), paternal grandmother, paternal aunt, and father, did not object to the Society's request.

The court granted the temporary orders but issued reasons to provide judicial guidance to the Society regarding its delay in commencing the protection application, emphasizing that the Act's paramount purpose (child's best interests) takes precedence over internal Ministry Directives, especially when protection concerns exist.

The applicant brought a motion regarding the child's school enrollment, which was decided in favour of the respondent.

The parties submitted written submissions on costs.

The court found that while the respondent was successful, both parties had engaged in unreasonable conduct.

The court fixed costs at $8,000 in favour of the respondent, but ordered that this amount be set off against $8,000 in costs that the respondent already owed to the applicant.

The applicant father brought a motion to enroll the parties' six-year-old child in a French Immersion program in Mississauga, contrary to the respondent mother's choice of a public school in North York.

The parties shared joint custody under a previous order which gave the mother final decision-making authority over education if they could not agree.

The court found that the mother's proposed school was in the child's best interests, noting the child's speech delays, the mother's proximity to the school, and the availability of before and after school care.

The father's motion regarding the choice of school was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a range of 12 to 15 months' imprisonment consecutive to a sentence the accused was already serving.

The court considered the accused's Aboriginal heritage, the mitigating factor of his guilty plea, and the harsh effects of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court sentenced the accused to 12 months' imprisonment consecutive to his current sentence, along with a lifetime weapons prohibition and a forfeiture order.

The applicant, facing robbery and firearms charges, sought an adjournment of his trial scheduled for January 4, 2021.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a provincial lockdown, the Chief Justice directed that non-jury matters proceed virtually unless an in-person hearing was absolutely necessary.

The applicant opposed a virtual trial, citing difficulties with his living situation, his counsel's childcare issues, and potential custody issues, and offered to waive his s. 11(b) Charter rights.

The court granted the adjournment, finding that in the specific circumstances, the applicant's right to a fair trial warranted an in-person hearing.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought an application under ss. 8, 9, 10(b) and 24(2) of the Charter to exclude evidence found in a satchel when he was arrested.

The court found that the police did not have reasonable and probable grounds to arrest him based on a confidential informant tip and ambiguous surveillance, resulting in a s. 9 breach.

The subsequent search of his person and satchel was therefore unlawful, breaching s. 8.

The police also delayed implementing his right to counsel for over four hours, breaching s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2).

The parties, who shared joint custody of their nine-year-old child, disagreed on whether the child should attend school in person or online during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion seeking an order for in-person attendance, while the respondent father sought online learning due to health risks.

The court found that the provincial government was in a better position to assess school attendance risks and that there was no unacceptable risk of harm to the child or either household.

The court ordered that the child be registered for and attend school in person, finding it to be in the child's best interests.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for criminal harassment.

The trial judge had convicted the appellant based on two text messages sent consecutively to the complainant, finding they constituted 'repeated communication'.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the appeal, holding that two text messages sent at the same time constitute a single communication, not repeated communication.

The court also found the trial judge's conclusions that the complainant was harassed and that her fear was objectively reasonable were unreasonable, given the lack of threats and the context of the messages.

The conviction was quashed and an acquittal entered.

Jonathan Garrett was charged with sexual assault, having previously pleaded guilty to assault and mischief.

The trial focused solely on the sexual assault charge.

The complainant's testimony was found to contain numerous significant inconsistencies when compared to her prior statements to police, hospital staff, and evidence given at the preliminary hearing.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court determined that these inconsistencies, which were not merely collateral, created a reasonable doubt regarding the complainant's lack of consent and the accused's guilt.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove the sexual assault charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and Garrett was acquitted.

The applicant physician faced disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding allegations of sexual abuse by a former patient.

The applicant sought an order under s. 35(9) of the Mental Health Act to permit the disclosure of the patient's psychiatric discharge summary, which he had received in error, to support a third-party records motion before the Discipline Committee.

The College opposed the disclosure, arguing it violated the patient's privacy interests.

The Divisional Court granted the application, finding that the records were relevant to the complainant's credibility and reliability, and that disclosure was essential in the interests of justice to allow the applicant to make full answer and defence, with privacy interests protected by a publication ban.

The applicant physician faced disciplinary proceedings before the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario regarding allegations of sexual abuse made by a former patient.

The applicant sought to disclose the complainant's psychiatric records, which he obtained both while acting as her treating physician and later in error, to challenge her credibility and reliability based on her diagnosis of borderline personality disorder.

The Divisional Court held that section 35(9) of the Mental Health Act applied to both sets of records, taking precedence over the Personal Health Information Protection Act.

The court ordered disclosure of the records, finding it was essential in the interests of justice to allow the applicant to make full answer and defence, while protecting the complainant's privacy through a publication ban.

Two separate appeals concerning the entrapment defence in dial-a-dope drug trafficking investigations.

In Williams' case, the trial judge found entrapment and stayed drug trafficking charges, but the Crown appealed.

In Ahmad's case, the trial judge rejected an entrapment application and convicted the accused.

The Court of Appeal held that police may provide opportunities to sell drugs to persons associated with phone lines reasonably suspected of being used in dial-a-dope operations, even without reasonable suspicion that those individuals are engaged in criminal activity, provided the police are conducting a bona fide inquiry.

The majority found no entrapment in either case.

The concurrence reached the same result but on the basis that police had reasonable suspicion that both accused were engaged in criminal activity.