Timothy D. Ray

The accused was tried on multiple charges arising from an incident involving a complainant and her teenage daughter, including sexual assault, possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose, unlawful confinement, assault, and breaches of recognizance conditions.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching recognizance conditions.

At trial, the court closely scrutinized the credibility of the complainant and the testimony of the daughter who was present during the events.

The judge found significant inconsistencies and credibility concerns in the complainant’s evidence and preferred the daughter’s testimony on key issues.

The court held that the Crown failed to prove sexual assault, weapon possession for a dangerous purpose, or unlawful confinement beyond a reasonable doubt, but found the accused guilty of the included offence of simple assault based on minor injuries observed by medical evidence.

The offender, a Catholic parish priest, pleaded guilty to multiple counts of indecent assault upon boys aged 9 to 13 under s. 156 of the Criminal Code.

The offences involved grooming altar boys and assaulting them during overnight stays, often after cultivating trust with their families.

The court emphasized the profound breach of trust and long‑term harm to victims and the community, including loss of faith and enduring psychological consequences.

Although the offender was elderly, had no prior record, and was assessed as low risk for recidivism, denunciation and deterrence were held to be the predominant sentencing objectives in cases involving sexual abuse of children by persons in authority.

A custodial sentence totalling nine months followed by three years of probation was imposed along with several ancillary orders.

The accused was convicted by a jury of multiple historical sexual assaults and an indecent assault committed against three young female family members over extended periods when they were children or teenagers.

The offences involved repeated abuse of trust by an uncle and included acts of sexual touching, sexual intercourse, exposure, and grooming behaviour occurring in family homes over many years.

The court considered the severe psychological and social impact on the victims, the abuse of trust, the young age of the victims, and the offender’s prior sexual assault conviction as significant aggravating factors.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for sexual offences against children, the court imposed a substantial penitentiary sentence along with several ancillary orders.

In a certified class proceeding, the defendant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision that ordered notice to class members through newspaper publication and added a common issue concerning whether an appropriate remedy existed if liability were established.

The court applied Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure governing leave to appeal interlocutory orders.

It held that no conflicting authority existed and there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge’s decision regarding publication of notice.

The court further held that the motion judge acted within his discretion in permitting consideration of an expert report appended to an affidavit and in adding a common issue relating to potential remedies.

As neither branch of the test for leave to appeal was satisfied, leave to appeal was refused.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) regarding the validity of certain provisions of a City of Ottawa zoning by-law.

The OMB had found some provisions valid, some invalid, and sent others back to the City for reconsideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding that while the issue was important and the standard of review was reasonableness, the appeal was premature because the final language of the by-law had not yet been settled by the City's reconsideration.

Following an earlier costs decision directing the respondent to file a proper Bill of Costs, the court considered the respondent’s revised submission.

The submission included extensive additional materials beyond the requested Bill of Costs, which the court declined to consider.

The court found the claimed full indemnity costs of over $52,000 excessive relative to the proportionality of the dispute, which concerned whether $125,000 should be shared between the parties.

After accepting disbursements but rejecting certain fee claims and finding the hours excessive, the court determined reasonable full indemnity costs to be $25,000 and fixed partial indemnity costs accordingly.

The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent $16,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

Following a family law trial concerning property division and equalization, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The principal dispute at trial concerned whether the respondent’s cottage constituted a matrimonial home for purposes of calculating Net Family Property.

The court found that the applicant had advanced an unfair claim regarding the cottage which significantly prolonged the litigation.

Although neither party beat their formal settlement offers, the court determined that the respondent was the successful party and entitled to costs.

However, the court declined to assess the amount due to inadequate cost submissions and directed the respondent to file a proper bill of costs.

Following a successful insurance coverage application concerning a duty to defend a personal injury action under a CGL policy, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The applicants sought 75% of their full indemnity costs, while the respondent argued that no costs should be awarded due to a prior settlement offer proposing payment of 50% of costs.

The court rejected the respondent’s position and confirmed that the applicants, as the successful party, were entitled to costs.

Applying the principles of proportionality and the usual partial indemnity approach under Rule 58, the court assessed costs at $4,500 payable by the respondent.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on two counts of breach of probation following a roadside RIDE stop where police demanded identification from vehicle passengers and conducted a CPIC check.

The trial judge had found Charter breaches, including unlawful detention and unreasonable search and seizure, after concluding that the demand for identification and retention of the respondent’s birth certificate amounted to detention without lawful grounds.

Evidence of the probation breach was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter and the respondent was acquitted.

On appeal, the court held that the trial judge’s findings of detention and Charter breaches were supported by the evidence and that his exclusion of evidence under the Grant framework was entitled to deference.

The Crown failed to demonstrate any reversible error in the trial judge’s reasoning or application of legal principles.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to amend their statement of claim to remove settling defendants following a Pierringer agreement and to restrict their remaining claim to nuisance against the non-settling defendants.

The non-settling defendants opposed and sought judgment dismissing the action, arguing the settlement terms barred the plaintiffs from continuing proceedings where contribution or indemnity claims existed.

The court held that amendments under Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure should be granted absent non-compensable prejudice.

The court found that the non-settling defendants retained their substantive right to pursue contribution or indemnity through declaratory relief and that any prejudice could be addressed in costs.

The amendment was permitted and the non-settling defendants’ motion for judgment was dismissed.

A parenting trial concerning custody, access, and child support for a young child of unmarried parents who had relocated between Nova Scotia and Ontario.

The father sought custody and permission to relocate the child permanently to Nova Scotia, while the mother opposed relocation and sought primary care in Ottawa.

Applying the best interests test under s. 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court found both parents capable but expressed concern about the mother’s willingness to facilitate the father’s relationship with the child.

The court ordered joint custody with the mother as primary caregiver, imposed restrictions on relocation without the father’s consent or court approval, and established a structured holiday access regime.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support, daycare contributions, and arrears, and to secure support through life insurance.

Sentencing for possession of crack cocaine and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, together with multiple breaches of recognizance and probation.

The offender was arrested outside an Ottawa bar with significant quantities of cocaine and crack cocaine concealed on his person.

Although aggravating factors included a prior criminal record, youth involvement with violent offences, and commission of the offences while on probation and bail, the court treated serious police Charter breaches during the arrest and search as a mitigating factor.

The court imposed a global sentence reflecting denunciation and deterrence but granted substantial credit for police misconduct and pre‑sentence custody.

The parties separated after a 20-year marriage.

The applicant sought to have the respondent's cottage, which he owned prior to marriage, declared a second matrimonial home under s. 18(1) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that while the parties ordinarily used the cottage during the summer, the applicant never treated it as a family residence, making no financial or maintenance contributions.

Thus, the cottage was not a matrimonial home, allowing the respondent to deduct its pre-marriage value from his net family property.

The court also ordered the inclusion of the respondent's survivor pension benefit in his NFP and dismissed his claim for occupation rent.

The applicants sought an order requiring their insurer to defend or indemnify defence costs in a negligence action arising from a slip-and-fall on shopping centre premises.

The applicants were additional insureds under a commercial general liability policy issued to a snow removal contractor, with coverage limited to operations performed by that contractor under a snow removal agreement.

The court held that some allegations in the underlying statement of claim potentially fell within the contractor’s contractual operations while others alleged independent occupiers’ liability outside the scope of the policy.

Because the pleadings disclosed both covered and uncovered claims, the insurer had a partial duty to defend.

The insurer was ordered to pay 75% of the applicants’ defence costs on an ongoing basis, subject to reconsideration as the factual record develops.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave and judicial review of a Law Society Hearing Panel decision, the court determined costs.

The respondent sought partial indemnity costs of $7,669.40.

The applicant argued for no costs, claiming the issue was novel and blaming the respondent for not agreeing to an adjournment.

The court rejected the applicant's arguments, noting he chose the venue and his own costs outline exceeded the respondent's claim.

The court awarded the successful respondent costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The accused was detained outside a bar after police responded to a report of a firearm.

During a prolonged investigative detention and subsequent searches, including a strip search at the police station where an officer gratuitously stood on his ankles, police found significant quantities of cocaine and crack cocaine.

A handgun was later found nearby.

The court found multiple serious breaches of the accused's ss. 7, 8, and 10 Charter rights.

However, applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the drug evidence under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty of possession for the purpose of trafficking and breach of orders, but not guilty of the firearm and proceeds of crime charges due to reasonable doubt.

Following an uncontested personal injury trial where the defendants were noted in default and damages of $820,000 plus prejudgment interest were awarded, the plaintiffs sought costs.

The court considered the plaintiffs’ written costs submissions after the trial.

In light of the defendants’ conduct and the necessity of the litigation steps taken by the plaintiffs to pursue redress, the court found the claimed costs reasonable.

Costs were fixed at $37,202.61 inclusive of HST.

The Bank of Montreal and the bankruptcy trustee for a respondent moved to rescind part of a prior consent order obtained in family proceedings concerning the distribution of proceeds from the sale of a matrimonial home.

The impugned paragraph authorized payment of funds held in court to the applicant and characterized the payment as child support, despite the respondent being an undischarged bankrupt and the funds having vested in the bankruptcy trustee.

The earlier consent order had been obtained without notice to the trustee and contrary to a prior court order requiring that any claim to the bankrupt’s share be pursued through a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding.

The court held the consent provision invalid and rescinded it, ordered the remaining funds subject to a stop order paid to the Bank of Montreal pursuant to its execution, and held the applicant jointly and severally liable with the bankrupt respondent to the trustee for the portion previously received.

Costs were awarded to the bank and trustee.

The accused brought a Garofoli application seeking disclosure of an affiant police officer’s notes, leave to cross‑examine the affiant, and exclusion of evidence obtained under a general warrant.

The court ordered disclosure of the officer’s notes subject to redaction to protect the confidential informant and granted leave to cross‑examine the affiant on issues relating to the reliability of the informant and alleged omissions or misstatements in the Information to Obtain (ITO).

After cross‑examination, the court found the ITO fundamentally deficient, containing misrepresentations and lacking reliable evidence capable of establishing reasonable and probable grounds.

The general warrant was set aside and the search deemed warrantless, engaging the accused’s Charter rights.

The matter was adjourned for continuation of the application regarding exclusion of evidence.

The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the parties made written submissions on costs.

The successful respondents sought costs of $5,050.00, relying on a written offer to settle for $500.00 which they bettered.

The appellant argued for partial indemnity costs and sought its own costs for a motion to extend time.

The court rejected the appellant's arguments, noting the appellant's own costs outline was over $13,500.00.

The court awarded the respondents their requested costs fixed at $5,050.00.