Theo Wolder

The applicant mother sought sole custody of two children and permission to relocate with them from Ontario to Okotoks, Alberta.

The respondent father opposed the relocation and sought joint or shared custody with the children remaining in Ontario.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer investigated and recommended the children remain in Ontario.

The court applied the best interests of the child test and found that the applicant failed to discharge her burden of proving the proposed move was in the children's best interests.

The court granted the applicant sole custody conditional on her remaining in Ontario within 100 km of Oakville, with the custody reverting to the respondent if she relocated beyond that radius without consent or court order.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

A peace officer observed the accused exhibiting signs of impairment and made an approved screening device demand.

The accused failed to provide a suitable sample on two attempts and then verbally refused.

The accused claimed he had provided two suitable samples both registering 0.00, attributed the odour of alcohol to spilled beer on his clothing, and alleged racial abuse by the officer.

The court found the Crown's evidence credible and the accused's evidence incredible and internally inconsistent.

The court convicted the accused, finding he had violated section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found asleep in the driver's seat of his running vehicle during rush hour traffic.

He admitted to smoking a substance he believed to be marijuana approximately 30 minutes before being found.

The Crown could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the substance was marijuana, but argued the charge was proven as the accused consumed an unidentified drug.

The court found the accused guilty, holding that the accused voluntarily consumed a substance he knew to be a drug with intoxicating effects, and his subsequent decision to drive constituted recklessness sufficient to establish the requisite mens rea, regardless of whether the substance was the specific drug he believed he was consuming.