Suzanne Cote is an Ontario lawyer (In Private Practice) with 3 court cases on record from 2013 to 2016. Practice areas include family/matrimonial law.

What courts has Suzanne Cote appeared in?

Suzanne Cote has appeared in Court of Justice, Superior Court of Justice, with most appearances at the Court of Justice.

What areas does Suzanne Cote practice in?

Suzanne Cote practices in family/matrimonial law, based on 3 court appearances across Ontario.

How many cases has Suzanne Cote handled?

Suzanne Cote has 3 cases on record from 2013 to 2016.

What judges has Suzanne Cote appeared before?

Suzanne Cote has most frequently appeared before Justice Lloyd Dean, Justice Mark P. Shelston.

Suzanne Cote | Lawyer | Suzanne Yvonne Cote

3 total

Nye v Nye, 2016 ONSC 3905

This costs endorsement followed a motion to change spousal support.

The applicant initially sought termination of spousal support, later amending his position to seek variation.

The respondent sought to maintain support, obtain life insurance, and a retroactive cost-of-living adjustment.

The court varied spousal support, rejected the life insurance request, and granted a partial retroactive cost-of-living adjustment.

In determining costs, the court considered the parties' success, the reasonableness of their positions and settlement offers, and their financial circumstances.

The applicant was deemed the more successful party overall, despite his initial unreasonable position, and was awarded net costs of $4,220.83, with enforcement stayed.

SCJJun 24, 2016

Applicant Counsel

R. v. Vassel, 2013 ONCJ 775

The Crown applied for an assessment order under section 672.12(3) of the Criminal Code to determine whether the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder at the time of committing uttering threat offences and breaches of probation.

The accused opposed the application, arguing the Crown had not met the statutory threshold of "reasonable grounds to doubt" criminal responsibility.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the evidence, including Dr. Komer's assessment and the accused's history of mental illness, pointed to a potential inability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions or that they were wrong as contemplated by section 16 of the Criminal Code.

ONCJOct 28, 2013

Applicant Counsel

R. v. Vassell, 2013 ONCJ 333

The Crown applied pursuant to section 672.12(3)(b) of the Criminal Code for an order to assess whether the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD).

The accused had been ordered to undergo a fitness assessment, which found him fit to stand trial but raised concerns about potential NCRMD.

The court dismissed the Crown's application as premature, holding that the Crown may only raise the NCRMD issue at two specific junctures: when the accused puts mental capacity into issue, or after a finding of guilt but before conviction.

The application was brought before trial, violating the principles established in R. v. Swain.

Applicant Counsel