Vanessa V. Christie

The applicant sought a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) on a property, alleging the respondent was the true owner despite attempts to conceal ownership, and that her $100,000 investment from refinancing the matrimonial home gave her an interest.

The respondent argued the deposit was for a third-party buyer, Jeff Liu, for whom he acted as a realtor, and that the applicant had no direct interest.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence of fraudulent purchase by the respondent, no demonstrated interest by the applicant beyond a deposit, sufficient other assets for equalization, and that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The applicant, Holly Whittaker, faced charges of possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking and simple possession.

She brought two Charter applications: one alleging violation of her right to silence and right to counsel (ss. 7 and 10(b)) regarding an utterance about a purse, and another alleging unlawful arrest (s. 9) and unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8) leading to a strip search and seizure of fentanyl.

The court found a breach of s. 10(b) regarding the utterance, as police elicited evidence after she requested counsel without providing an opportunity to speak with counsel.

The court also found a breach of s. 9 and s. 8, concluding that the arrest lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds, as the confidential informant's tip was uncorroborated and unreliable.

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded both the utterance and the seized fentanyl and purse under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference of a person under 16 years of age and three counts of breaching recognizance conditions.

The offences occurred over more than two years, during which the accused engaged in repeated sexual intercourse with a 14-year-old girl, resulting in two pregnancies.

The court imposed a sentence of 50 months imprisonment, with credit for pre-sentence custody, along with mandatory DNA, SOIRA, and firearms prohibition orders, and discretionary section 161 orders restricting contact with the victim and employment involving minors.

The applicants (maternal grandparents) brought a motion requesting an order pursuant to sections 89 and 112 of the Courts of Justice Act that the Office of the Children's Lawyer be requested to investigate the circumstances of claims for custody and/or access to the child.

The respondents (biological parents) opposed the motion.

The court granted the motion, finding that the involvement of the Office of the Children's Lawyer would be helpful in determining the child's best interests given the complex factual disputes, the child's age and ability to express herself, and the child protection overtones in the case.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the victim in the neck on August 14, 2017.

The accused pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence agreed on the facts of the assault.

The defence called psychiatric evidence from two experts: Dr. Beth Eayrs and Dr. Maxym Choptiany.

At the initial hearing, the court found the evidence insufficient to establish the defence.

The hearing was reopened to allow for additional evidence.

At the reopened hearing, the court found that although the accused suffered from schizophrenia and likely experienced psychotic symptoms at the time of the offence, the evidence demonstrated that the accused had the capacity to know his actions were morally wrong and proceeded to commit the act anyway.

The court found the accused criminally responsible and convicted him of aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from a motor vehicle collision on June 29, 2017: impaired operation, operation with blood alcohol over 80 mg/100 mL, dangerous operation, and two counts of breach of probation.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The trial was conducted as a blended voir dire and trial.

The court heard evidence from three Crown witnesses and received expert toxicology evidence by affidavit.

The defence filed an affidavit regarding lawyer contact procedures.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired operation and dangerous operation, but acquitted on the over 80 charge due to uncertainty regarding the timing of the accident and concerns about bolus drinking assumptions in the expert evidence.

The breach of probation charges were to be resolved separately.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the impaired operation count was dismissed.

The central issue was whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to make a breath demand following a positive approved screening device result, particularly in light of evidence of an open beer can found in the vehicle after the screening device test was administered.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on multiple indicia of impairment and that the presence of the beer can did not constitute credible evidence of recent consumption sufficient to undermine the reliability of the screening device result.

The accused was convicted.

The Crown charged Brian Jordan Ense and Joseph Bernard Edward Ense with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an alleged incident on November 5, 2016, at a house party on Manitoulin Island.

The complainant, a 16-year-old girl, testified that she was sexually assaulted by both men while intoxicated.

Joseph Ense's charges were withdrawn after his death during the trial.

The court found Brian Jordan Ense guilty of sexual assault based on the complainant's testimony, DNA evidence linking him to the complainant, and corroborating evidence from other witnesses.

The court rejected arguments regarding continuity of DNA evidence and credibility challenges to the complainant's testimony, finding her evidence credible and reliable despite inconsistencies between her police statement, 911 call, and trial testimony.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

Following a lawful R.I.D.E. stop, the officer detected the odor of alcohol on the accused's breath and administered a roadside screening device, which produced a "fail" result.

The accused was arrested and transported to a police detachment where breath samples were obtained.

The defence challenged the legality of the stop, the placement of the accused in the police vehicle for the screening device test, and alleged violations of the right to counsel.

The court found no Charter violations and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with sexual exploitation of a young person under Criminal Code section 153(1)(a).

The Crown alleged that the accused, who was in a position of trust or authority, touched the complainant's private parts for a sexual purpose.

The complainant was 16 years old at the time and living in the accused's home as a condition of bail.

The trial judge found that while the complainant's evidence contained material inconsistencies and credibility issues, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching occurred.

Additionally, the court found that the Crown did not establish that the accused was in a position of trust or authority over the complainant.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with two counts under s. 253(1) of the Criminal Code: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol, and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was found asleep in the driver's seat of a running vehicle parked on a residential street.

The trial judge found that the accused had rebutted the presumption of care and control by establishing she had no intention to drive.

However, the court found that a realistic risk of danger existed under the second prong of the Boudreault test—that an impaired person behind the wheel may unintentionally set the vehicle in motion.

The court convicted on the impaired count and stayed the over-80 count pursuant to Kienapple.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failure to stop at the scene of an accident contrary to section 252 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The charge under section 252 was quashed as it did not constitute an offence known to law.

At trial, the Crown proved that the accused operated a vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public.

The accused did not testify.

The court found that the accused's conduct—leaving the roadway, driving onto private property, gunning the engine to escape the yard, coming within five feet of a pedestrian, and subsequently driving a severely damaged vehicle in an erratic manner—constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances.

The court convicted the accused of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault for stabbing the victim in the neck on August 14, 2017.

The accused pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and defence agreed on the facts of the assault.

The defence called expert psychiatric evidence from Dr. Beth Eayrs, a forensic psychiatrist, who opined that the accused was suffering from schizophrenia and was psychotic at the time of the offence, acting under command hallucinations.

The court found that while the accused may have been experiencing auditory hallucinations, the evidence demonstrated that he had the capacity to know his conduct was morally wrong.

The court rejected the defence and found the accused criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and failure to remain at the scene of an accident involving property damage.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict on the failure to remain charge, arguing that section 252 of the Criminal Code only applies to accidents involving another person, vehicle, or cattle, not property.

The court initially considered this as a directed verdict motion but subsequently treated it as a motion to quash.

The court found that the information did not disclose an offence known to law, as section 252 contains no reference to accidents with property.

The court quashed count 2 on the information, finding that any amendment would result in irreparable prejudice to the accused by completely changing the case to meet.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code and resisting arrest under section 129(a) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, who had suffered catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident two years prior, including collapsed lungs and incontinence, was stopped by police on suspicion of impaired driving.

She attempted multiple times to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device but was unable to produce a suitable sample.

The accused claimed she had respiratory difficulties from her injuries and offered an alternative of providing a blood sample at a hospital.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, rejecting her evidence regarding her respiratory limitations and finding that she deliberately failed to provide a suitable sample without reasonable excuse.

A youth was charged with sexual assault under the Criminal Code following an incident at a party on January 30, 2016.

The complainant, a 15-year-old girl, consumed significant quantities of alcohol and had no memory of the alleged assault.

The Crown relied primarily on the testimony of a witness who claimed to have found the accused and complainant together in a locked bedroom.

The defence challenged the reliability of the witness testimony and argued there was insufficient evidence to prove the essential elements of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the witness evidence to be fraught with inconsistencies, contradictions between trial testimony and police statements, and significant reliability concerns.

The court acquitted the accused, finding the Crown had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that force was applied or that any force took place in circumstances of a sexual nature.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code for an incident occurring on May 6, 2016, in Wikwemikong.

The complainant, the mother of the accused's grandchild, attended the accused's residence to retrieve her young daughter after receiving information that the accused was intoxicated.

A physical altercation ensued between the accused and the complainant.

The accused raised defences of self-defence and defence of property.

The court found the accused guilty of assault, rejecting both defences on the basis that the accused was not acting reasonably in the circumstances and that the complainant was attempting to leave the property with her child when attacked.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences including assault causing bodily harm against his former partner, mischief, theft under $5,000, failure to comply with a probation order, and failure to appear in court.

The sentencing involved consideration of Gladue factors as the accused is a member of the M'Chigeeng First Nation.

The court imposed an 8-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including house arrest for the first four months, followed by a curfew, and 16 months of probation.

The sentence emphasized denunciation and deterrence while considering the accused's rehabilitative potential and Aboriginal heritage.