Aitken

The applicants sought a declaration under s. 31 of the Marriage Act that they were legally married following a religious ceremony in South Korea.

The applicants knew at the time that the religious ceremony did not constitute a legal marriage in South Korea and that civil registration was required, but they were unable to complete the registration before returning to Canada.

The court dismissed the application, finding that s. 31 could not validate the marriage because the applicants knew the ceremony was legally inadequate, distinguishing the case from precedent where parties believed their religious ceremony created a legally binding marriage.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for impaired driving.

He brought a preliminary motion for the appeal judge to recuse herself based on a reasonable apprehension of bias, which was dismissed as unfounded.

On the substantive appeal, the appellant argued that fresh evidence should be admitted, that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds, that evidence should have been excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, and that the verdict was unreasonable based on circumstantial evidence.

The court dismissed all grounds of appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors by the trial judge and concluding that the verdict was supported by the evidence.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving and driving over the legal limit, alleging ineffective assistance by his trial counsel.

He sought to introduce fresh evidence to support this claim, while the Crown applied to summarily dismiss this ground of appeal.

The Superior Court of Justice allowed the fresh evidence but dismissed the appeal on the ground of ineffective counsel, finding that the appellant failed to establish the underlying facts of his allegations and that trial counsel had provided highly competent, effective, and reasonable representation.

The Crown applied for a review of a release order under section 521 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was facing multiple sets of charges, including sexual assault and breach of recognizance.

The reviewing judge found that the initial justice made errors of law by failing to apply the reverse onus under section 524(4) and by issuing inconsistent release and detention orders for the same accused.

The reviewing judge vacated the release order and ordered the accused detained on the secondary grounds, finding a substantial likelihood that the accused would commit further offences if released.

The accused pled guilty to aggravated assault after stabbing his intimate partner multiple times in the neck and face.

Both the accused and the victim were survivors of the Rwandan genocide.

A psychiatric assessment concluded the accused suffered from severe PTSD and was likely in a dissociative state during the attack, triggered by discussions regarding HIV status.

The court found a causal link between the accused's mental illness and the offence, significantly reducing his moral culpability.

The accused was sentenced to one year of incarceration, with a recommendation for a treatment centre, followed by two years of probation.

The applicant, who was self-represented, applied for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal regarding his convictions for uttering threats and disobeying a court order.

The court applied the three-factor test for extending time to appeal.

The court found that the applicant did not form a bona fide intention to appeal within the appeal period and that the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit.

The application for an extension of time was dismissed.

Defence counsel brought an application to be removed as solicitor of record for the accused after accepting a full-time contract position.

The accused and the Crown opposed the application.

The trial was scheduled to commence in less than two months, and the accused was unable to retain alternate counsel for the scheduled dates.

The court applied the Cunningham factors and found that adjourning the trial would likely result in a delay of over a year, potentially triggering a successful Jordan application and negatively impacting the accused's rehabilitation.

The application was dismissed as withdrawal would cause serious harm to the administration of justice.

The Crown brought forfeiture proceedings against the accused for failing to attend court while on bail.

The accused challenged the court's jurisdiction, arguing the certificate of default was defective.

The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, finding that a lack of particularity does not deny jurisdiction.

Considering the accused's financial circumstances and late disclosure by the Crown, the court ordered a reduced forfeiture of $500 instead of the pledged $2,500.

The Crown brought an application for the forfeiture of a $60,000 cash bail deposit and various sums pledged by sureties after the accused breached his recognizance by continuing to traffic drugs and commit firearms offences.

Prior to the hearing, resolutions were reached regarding the sureties, resulting in $65,000 in forfeitures.

The accused subsequently died in prison.

The estate of the accused sought relief from forfeiture of the cash deposit, requesting that $30,000 be returned to support the accused's children.

The court found that the accused had shown total disregard for his bail conditions and that the estate failed to provide adequate evidence of financial need.

The court ordered the full $60,000 cash deposit forfeited.

The Crown appealed the respondent's acquittal on a charge of driving 'over 80'.

The trial judge had excluded breathalyzer evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter after finding breaches of the respondent's s. 10(a) and s. 10(b) rights.

The summary conviction appeal court upheld the findings of a s. 10(a) breach and an informational s. 10(b) breach, but found the trial judge erred in finding an implementational s. 10(b) breach.

Conducting a fresh s. 24(2) analysis, the appeal court concluded the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, allowed the appeal, and entered a conviction.

The applicant, charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a stay of proceedings until state-funded counsel was provided.

Legal Aid Ontario had denied his application due to missing financial documentation.

The court found that the applicant lacked the financial means to retain counsel and that his limited education and reading difficulties made counsel essential for a fair trial.

The application was granted, and the proceedings were stayed until the Attorney General provides funding for counsel.

The accused pled guilty to perjury for lying under oath during the preliminary inquiry of her boyfriend, who was charged with murder.

The Crown and defence agreed on a sentence range of 18 to 24 months but disagreed on whether it should be served in custody or the community.

The court considered the serious nature of perjury in homicide cases, the accused's youth, lack of prior record, guilty plea, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on custodial sentences.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, finding it would adequately address denunciation and deterrence while facilitating rehabilitation.

The accused pled guilty to assault causing bodily harm against his intimate partner and breach of recognizance.

The court considered the severe nature of the assault, the accused's lack of prior record, his low risk of reoffending, and the impact of stringent pre-sentence bail conditions and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The accused was sentenced to 90 days of intermittent jail for the assault, followed by a 12-month conditional sentence for the breach, and probation.

The applicant sought a detention review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, arguing a material change in circumstances after pleading guilty to several charges and receiving a sentence of time served, leaving only two sets of charges outstanding.

The court found that the new circumstances, including the anticipated pre-sentence custody credit and the withdrawal of his sister as a surety, would not have affected the original bail judge's decision to detain him on the secondary ground due to his extensive criminal record, escalating violent behaviour, and near certainty of reoffending.

The application for a detention review was dismissed.

The accused, charged with multiple firearms and drug trafficking offences, underwent a 90-day detention review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The accused proposed a release plan involving a surety and GPS monitoring.

The court found the release plan inadequate and ordered the accused's continued detention, concluding it was justified under the primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds, despite the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in correctional institutions.

The appellant appealed his summary conviction for assault and assault causing bodily harm against the complainant.

He argued the trial judge erred in assessing credibility, improperly used corroborative evidence, and applied uneven scrutiny to the defence and Crown evidence.

The Superior Court of Justice found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's credibility assessments, noting that different types of testimony require different critical evaluations.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed his conviction and sentence for breaching an undertaking not to communicate with his former partner.

The breach occurred when the appellant engaged in FaceTime calls with the complainant while exercising access to their children.

The summary conviction appeal court upheld the trial judge's findings that the appellant had the requisite subjective mens rea, as he intentionally called the complainant knowing he was bound by a no-contact condition.

The court also upheld the trial judge's refusal to apply the defence of de minimis non curat lex, noting the public interest in enforcing release conditions in domestic violence cases.

The appeal against the suspended sentence and probation was also dismissed.

The applicant sought an order under s. 684 of the Criminal Code assigning counsel to act on her behalf in a summary conviction appeal.

While the court found the appeal raised an arguable issue, it determined the applicant had sufficient financial means to retain counsel.

The court noted that the applicant's high monthly expenses included discretionary choices, such as boarding three horses, and concluded that reorganizing her finances would allow her to pay for legal services.

The application was dismissed.

The children's aid society sought extended society care for three young children and a custody order to a grandmother for the oldest child.

The parents opposed the orders, seeking the return of all four children to their care.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the parents' history of substance abuse, domestic conflict, and inability to meet the children's developmental and medical needs.

The court concluded that returning the children to the parents was not a viable option and that the society's proposed plan was in the children's best interests.

The oldest child was placed in the custody of his grandmother, and the three younger children were placed in extended society care with limited parental access.

The applicant, who had pled guilty to multiple counts of fraud and received a 360-day sentence, appealed his conviction and sentence.

He brought an application under s. 684 of the Criminal Code for the assignment of counsel for his summary conviction appeal, arguing his guilty plea was uninformed regarding the start date of his sentence.

The court dismissed the application, finding no arguable issue as the sentencing judge had clearly explained the sentence and the applicant, a seasoned offender, raised no concerns.

The court also noted the applicant was capable of representing himself.

A Crown motion to summarily dismiss the appeal was dismissed without prejudice due to lack of notice.