W. Danial Newton

The applicant mother brought a motion to change child support based on the respondent father's actual income for 2015, 2016, and 2017, and sought contribution for extraordinary expenses related to the child's hockey.

The respondent father sought joint custody.

The court granted the motion to change child support, calculating arrears based on the father's actual income, but dismissed the claim for extraordinary expenses as they were not within the parties' budgets.

The court also dismissed the father's claim to vary custody, finding no material change in circumstances.

The accused, Monica Spence and Daniel Debassige, were sentenced for their roles in the beating death of the victim.

Following a trial, Debassige was found guilty of second-degree murder, and Spence was found guilty of manslaughter due to intoxication and provocation after the victim sexually assaulted her.

Applying Gladue principles and considering pre-sentence reports, the court sentenced Spence to five years (with credit for pre-sentence custody, leaving 703 days) followed by three years of probation.

Debassige received a mandatory life sentence with no parole eligibility for 10 years, in accordance with a joint submission.

The Crown appealed the accused's acquittals for impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The accused had been found intoxicated in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle but stated she only entered to listen to music and smoke.

The summary conviction appeal judge found no error in the trial judge's refusal to allow a new question on re-examination regarding identity.

The appeal court also held that the trial judge's finding that the accused rebutted the presumption of care and control and posed no realistic risk of danger was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed.

The moving party defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim, arguing that the plaintiff, her elderly father, had not authorized his lawyer to commence the action.

The defendant relied on Rule 15.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to demand proof of authority.

The plaintiff's lawyer provided an affidavit confirming he received instructions directly from the plaintiff.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the solicitor's affidavit was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 15.02, particularly given the plaintiff's illiteracy and use of a mark to sign documents.

The court issued an addendum to clarify a previous judgment following a teleconference with counsel.

The reasons were modified to specify that the replacement cost owing by the insurer is payable upon satisfactory proof that the actual cash value (ACV) funds have been expended for rebuilding or replacement.

The plaintiff sought an order declaring the self-represented defendant a trespasser and requiring her to deliver vacant possession of a rental property.

The defendant had been living rent-free in the property since 2003 after vacating her mortgaged home due to severe structural and mold issues.

The parties disputed the terms of the oral agreement governing her occupancy of the rental property.

Finding that the material facts were in dispute, the court directed a trial of the issue pursuant to Rule 38.10 and ordered a teleconference to discuss joining the matter with the defendant's related ongoing actions.

The accused, Jonathan Green, brought an application challenging the jury panel for his sexual assault trial, alleging it was not representative of the District of Rainy River's population and thus non-compliant with the Juries Act.

The application was summarily dismissed as the Supreme Court of Canada's jurisprudence in *R. v. Kokopenace* emphasizes that representativeness focuses on the jury selection process, not the resulting composition of the jury roll or panel.

The court found no evidentiary basis to attack the selection process, and further, applied the principles from *R. v. Cody* regarding summary dismissal of applications lacking a reasonable prospect of success.

The accused were tried on historical sexual offence allegations involving a child family member and alleged participation by one accused in some incidents.

The case turned primarily on credibility and reliability, with the court applying the reasonable doubt framework and the principles in W. (D.) to conflicting testimony.

The court found aspects of the complainant's evidence exaggerated or inconsistent on material points, found one accused not fully truthful on some matters, and concluded that the evidentiary record as a whole left uncertainty about what evidence was true.

Because the Crown had not displaced reasonable doubt, both accused were acquitted.

The Crown applied to admit a videotaped statement made by the accused, Jonathan Green, who was charged with sexual assault.

Green argued the statement was involuntary due to the absence of a standard caution and right to counsel.

The court found that Green was not detained and was not initially a suspect when he voluntarily attended the police station.

Although the police questioning later shifted to directly implicating Green without a caution, the court determined that Green was not compelled or overborne, and no inducements or oppression were present.

The court ruled the statement voluntary and admissible in evidence.

The accused, charged with sexual assault, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, citing institutional and Crown delay.

The total delay from charge to anticipated end of trial was 27.5 months.

The court deducted three months of delay attributable to bringing the application, resulting in a net delay of 24 months.

As the delay fell below the 30-month ceiling established in Jordan, the onus was on the accused to show the delay was unreasonable.

The court found the accused failed to demonstrate that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, particularly given the transitional tolerance for institutional delay.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

This motion primarily concerned temporary parenting arrangements for the parties' almost 3-year-old daughter and associated child support.

The applicant sought temporary sole custody and child support, while the respondent sought interim joint custody and shared parenting, arguing against child support.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" and "maximum contact" principles, determining that the applicant's asserted "status quo" was not determinative as it was unilaterally created post-separation.

The court found no relevant past conduct issues impacting parenting ability.

This decision addresses the costs arising from a dismissed motion by two campers' associations to intervene in a proceeding.

Rock Solid Holdings Inc., the applicant in the main proceeding, sought costs.

The court, exercising its discretion under s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, awarded Rock Solid partial indemnity costs of $7,750 plus HST and disbursements of $829.08.

The court considered Rule 39.02(4)(b) regarding cross-examinations but "ordered otherwise" due to "bald assertions" in the affidavits filed by the proposed intervenors.

The costs were to be paid jointly and severally by the two campers' associations.

The offender, a registered nurse, was found guilty of sexually assaulting a coworker in a remote First Nation community.

The assault had a profound psychological and financial impact on the victim, resulting in a diagnosis of PTSD.

The Crown sought a 90-day custodial sentence, while the defence requested a conditional discharge or suspended sentence.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced the offender to 90 days of intermittent custody, followed by one year of probation, along with mandatory ancillary orders.

The defendant, Intact Insurance, brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to comply with undertakings and answer refusals from her examination for discovery in a personal injury action.

By the time of the hearing, the undertakings had been answered, leaving only the refusals and costs in dispute.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding prior injuries and to produce academic records from an incomplete bookkeeping course relevant to her loss of income claim.

The request for un-redacted counsellor records was deemed premature.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

Two cottage associations, Trout Lake Campers’ Association and The Surprise Lake Campers’ Association, sought leave to intervene in an application by Rock Solid Holdings Inc. for a declaration regarding zoning for a gravel pit.

The court dismissed the motion for leave to intervene, finding that while the associations had an interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected, their interests were adequately represented by the Lakehead Rural Planning Board, and their intervention would unduly delay the main application.

The court emphasized the narrow scope of the main application, which concerned only the zoning bylaw and historical use.

The defendants sought leave to amend their statement of defence to include a waiver defence, leave to file a jury notice late, and security for costs from the non-resident plaintiff.

The court granted leave to amend the statement of defence on terms that the defendants pay the plaintiff's reasonable substantial indemnity costs for additional steps required due to the amendment.

However, the court denied leave to file a jury notice late, finding the delay unconscionable and prejudicial to the plaintiff.

The motion for security for costs was deferred pending further affidavit evidence from both parties regarding costs and the enforceability of an Ontario judgment in Missouri.

This trial decision addresses a custody and access dispute between separated parents, Kathryn Margaret Moyer and Robert William Donald Moyer, concerning their two daughters.

The applicant initially sought sole custody, while the respondent sought joint custody, later amending to sole custody.

The court considered an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) report, which recommended sole custody to the applicant, but ultimately disagreed with its conclusions, finding the applicant exaggerated behavioral problems and that her parenting style reinforced issues.

The court emphasized the children's well-being in both households, as supported by teacher testimony, and found that despite communication challenges, the parents could make important decisions.

The final order granted joint custody with a shared parenting schedule, transitioning from a four-day on/four-day off rotation to a week on/week off schedule, and included provisions for child support, extraordinary expenses, post-secondary education, and mandatory assessment and therapy at a local mental health center.

The moving party brought a motion to stay the enforcement of a costs order pending the disposition of its application for leave to appeal a decision dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The court found it appropriate to grant the temporary stay, noting the practical realities of appeals and that the responding party's refusal to accept the costs on trust conditions was unreasonable.

The motion was granted, with costs awarded to the moving party.

The defendant, Sun Life, moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action for long-term disability benefits, arguing that the Superior Court lacked jurisdiction and that the proper forum was arbitration under the collective agreement.

The court reviewed the collective agreement, administrative services contract, and benefit booklet, noting contradictory language.

Applying the "essential character" test from Weber v. Hydro, the court found that the dispute, concerning entitlement to LTD benefits, arose from the interpretation, application, or administration of the collective agreement, even though the benefit plan was not explicitly incorporated.

The court concluded that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of an arbitrator and dismissed the action.

The plaintiff's motel/restaurant complex was partially destroyed by fire, leading to an insurance claim with INTACT.

The insurer delayed payment for nearly three years, driven by an unsubstantiated arson investigation and adversarial conduct, including misleading Crime Stoppers ads.

The plaintiff sued for breach of contract, replacement cost, lost profits, and punitive damages for bad faith.

The court found INTACT breached its duty of good faith by prolonging the investigation without reasonable grounds and delaying payment.

The plaintiff was awarded an increased replacement cost (conditional on rebuilding), lost profits for the period of delay, and significant punitive damages for the insurer's high-handed conduct.