Sydney Elise MacMillan Young

In a criminal case involving sexual assault charges against a physiotherapist, the defence brought a motion for directions regarding Crown disclosure of private records.

The central issue was whether documents disclosed by the Crown required an admissibility hearing under s. 278.92 of the Criminal Code, or if Crown disclosure implied a full waiver of privacy interests by the complainant.

The court, Molloy J., affirmed the binding nature of prior Superior Court decisions (R. v. J.K., R. v. Martiuk) which established a presumption that Crown disclosure constitutes a full waiver, negating the need for a s. 278.92 hearing.

However, the judge found that in this specific case, the Crown had failed to obtain proper, informed waivers from the complainants.

This lack of valid waivers constituted "evidence to the contrary," rebutting the presumption.

Consequently, the court ruled that admissibility hearings under s. 278.92 would indeed be required for the disclosed records.

The Applicant Father and Respondent Mother brought competing motions for interim custody and access.

The Father sought sole custody and supervised access for the Mother at a supervised access facility, along with a restraining order and exclusive possession of the matrimonial home.

The Mother sought interim joint custody, exclusive possession (which became moot due to a fire), and increased supervised access transitioning to equal parenting time.

The court also addressed preliminary issues regarding the admissibility of MVA medical reports, surreptitiously recorded video/audio, and Children's Aid Society (CAS) records.

The court granted interim joint custody, finding no evidence that the parties could not agree on child-related decisions prior to separation, and noting the Father's unilateral decisions regarding residence and daycare.

The Mother was granted increased supervised access (Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, 10 am to 7 pm), supervised by Millie Fogliano or Jane Morrow, with conditions regarding alcohol/marijuana consumption and driving.

A mutual restraining order was issued, and a non-removal order.

The court emphasized the need for a review in 6 months due to ongoing conflict and the Mother's need to demonstrate stability.

The applicant brought a motion seeking reimbursement for s. 7 expenses, further advances, and orders regarding a child's treatment and custody.

The respondent had a history of non-compliance with s. 7 expense orders, including failing to pay tuition, which caused a crisis for one child.

The court ordered the respondent to immediately reimburse the applicant for a specific university tuition payment.

The remaining s. 7 claims and the motions concerning the child's custody and treatment were adjourned, with the court noting the respondent's lack of collaboration and late disclosure as contributing factors to the ongoing issues and delays.

Directions for cost submissions were also provided, with the court highlighting the respondent's conduct.