Violence

MARCH/APRIL 2011 | 17
NWT DECISION DIGEST
SUPREME COURT
CIVIL
Pilon v. Pilon
2011 NWTSC 17 (CanLII) | March 16, 2011
Presiding: Justice V.A. Schuler
For the Applicant/Respondent: D. Large, QC
For the Respondent/Petitioner: A. Duchene
Application for summary judgment in
custody/access proceedings. A trial of
the Respondent Petitioner’s application
for an order varying the custody
arrangements was underway. Some
evidence had been heard and the
proceedings were adjourned to hear
from an expert witness. Before that
witness could be heard, the Applicant/
Respondent brought an application for
summary judgment to dismiss the
Respondent Petitioner’s application on
the basis that there was no triable issue
on the threshold matter, that there was
a change in circumstances, as required
by section 17(5) of the Divorce Act.
Application dismissed: “...there is a
genuine and triable issue as to whether
there has been a change of
circumstances affecting *the child’s+ best
interests...”
Gresty v. Wright
2011 NWTSC 10 (CanLII) | March 11, 2011
Presiding: Justice L.A. Charbonneau
For the Applicant: E. Blackmore
For the Respondent: B. Rattan
Application for interim orders
concerning the care and control of the
infant child and access. The child is 9
months old. The Respondent mother is
on maternity leave from her
employment in Edmonton; the
Applicant father is a member of the
armed services, on a three-year contract
in Yellowknife.
The Respondent fled the jurisdiction
with the infant child after attending at a
women’s shelter and obtaining an
Emergency Protection Order. The
Respondent alleges that the Applicant
threatened her and the child. The
Applicant has been charged with
uttering threats.
The issue is what living arrangements
are in the child’s best interests in the
short term, pending a determination of
the issue of custody. Interim orders:
the Respondent has care and control of
the child and the Applicant has access
on reasonable terms and conditions that
he and the Respondent must agree on;
access to be supervised by a third party;
reasonable access costs for the
Applicant to be shared equally by the
Respondent; no direct contact between
the parties and all communications and
access arrangements to be made
through counsel.
CASES CITED
Gordon v. Goertz [1996] 2 S.C.R. 27
Cater v. Cater, 2000 NWTSC 34
Ivens v. Ivens, 2008 NWTSC 18
Praetzel v. Porter, 2008 NWTSC 86
STATUTES CITED
Children’s Law Act
CRIMINAL
R. v. Delorme
2011 NWTSC 14 | March 14, 2011
Presiding: Justice V.A. Schuler
For the Crown: G. Boyd
For the Accused: A. Khan
Reasons for Sentence: the accused was
convicted by a jury of sexual assault.
The victim was asleep at the time. The
accused is an Aboriginal person, 28
years of age, with a grade 8 education, a
lengthy criminal record of 38
convictions including convictions for
assault and uttering threats and
breaches. He is the father of two
children, and has a history of alcohol
abuse. His family background is
“tragic”. There are no mitigating factors.
The offence took place before the
coming into force of the Truth in
Sentencing Act. The accused was
credited with 57 days of remand time as
the equivalent of three months and after
that, the sentence imposed is four years
in jail. Orders for DNA, registration
with the Sexual Offender Information
Registry, and 10 year firearm
prohibition.
CASES CITED
R. v. A.J.P.J., 2011 NWTCA 2
R. v. Kodzin, 2011 NWTSC 2
R. v. Arcand, 2010 ABCA 363
R. v. Beaulieu
2011 NWTSC 15 | March 16, 2011
Presiding: Justice J.Z. Vertes
For the Crown: J. Walsh
For the Accused: T. Boyd
Reasons for Sentence: The accused was
convicted by a jury of break and enter a
dwelling house and committing a
sexual assault therein. The maximum
penalty is life imprisonment.
There are no mitigating factors. The
aggravating factors are that the accused
and the victim knew each other for a
long time and the accused is
considerably older than the victim;
second, the accused has a record of 10
convictions between 1988 and 2009
including 2 convictions for assault and
the most recent conviction for arson
when the accused burned down his
own house. He had been released from
prison only 11 days before the present
offence.
The accused is a member of the