Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences

The applicant, Michael Kilbride, sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for charges including breaking into a private residence and assault.

The court found that the new bail plan, which included house arrest with his mother and cash pledges, did not constitute a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant a de novo hearing or to address the original concerns.

The applicant's extensive criminal record, history of failing to comply with court orders, and the surety's past inability to supervise him led the court to conclude that the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention remained strong.

The application for bail review was dismissed, and the applicant remained detained.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of a $20,000 release order against Abadula Biya and his sureties (his parents) following Mr. Biya's breach of bail conditions.

Mr. Biya had been released on bail pending appeal, which was later successful, leading to a new trial.

Despite a technicality in the latest release order form regarding Mr. Biya's personal liability, the court found jurisdiction for forfeiture based on earlier orders and Mr. Biya's admission of breach.

Applying principles from Horvath and Griffiths, the court considered the sureties' diligence, the family's financial hardship, and the need to maintain bail system credibility.

The court ordered partial forfeiture: Mr. Biya to pay $1,500 over two years, and each surety (his parents) to pay $750 over one year, totaling $3,000.

The applicant was charged with firearm-related offences arising from a search warrant executed by Peel Regional Police.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of the information to obtain the warrant to challenge its validity.

The heavily redacted ITO was reviewed in an in camera, ex parte hearing, and the Crown provided a judicial summary of redacted material.

The applicant proposed five areas of cross-examination.

The court granted limited leave to cross-examine regarding the reliability of the confidential informer's past information, but denied leave on the other four proposed areas: the overall credibility of the informer, the affiant's experience, the identification process used, and the second address mentioned in the affiant's notes.

This is a defence bail review under Section 520 of the Criminal Code, appealing a decision to detain the applicant on secondary and tertiary bail grounds.

The applicant proposed a new surety (grandmother), increased surety amount, more stringent house arrest, and GPS electronic monitoring as material changes in circumstances.

The court found a material change based on the new surety, applying a flexible approach to due diligence in bail reviews as per R. v. St. Cloud.

However, the court ultimately found the proposed plan and sureties insufficient to mitigate the significant public safety risk posed by the serious firearms and dangerous driving charges, dismissing the bail review application on secondary grounds.

The accused, Mr. Hifato, applied for a bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, seeking release into a residential drug treatment program with his sister as surety.

He faced serious charges including robbery, assault with a weapon, and firearm possession contrary to a prohibition order, and had an extensive criminal record rooted in substance abuse.

The Crown conceded a material change in circumstances due to the treatment plan but argued the plan was insufficient to address public risk and that release would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

The court found that the accused failed to meet his onus under both secondary and tertiary grounds, as the proposed plan lacked sufficient external controls to prevent re-offending, and the seriousness of the offences, strong Crown case, and extensive criminal history necessitated detention to maintain public confidence.

The application for bail review was dismissed.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order.

The court found material changes in circumstances due to a psychological report detailing the applicant's intellectual deficits and the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, the proposed release plan, including an unsuitable primary surety and insufficient details on electronic monitoring, failed to adequately address secondary and tertiary grounds for detention.

The court dismissed the bail review application, finding continued detention warranted to protect the public and maintain confidence in the administration of justice, despite the applicant's asthma making him vulnerable to COVID-19.

The appellant appealed his convictions on two counts of assault using a weapon and one count of assault causing bodily harm arising from an altercation at a pizza store.

The trial judge found the appellant used a screwdriver to assault the store owner and employee, and rejected his self-defence claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge's excessive interventions during the appellant's testimony undermined the appearance of fairness and resulted in actual unfairness.

The trial judge's pointed cross-examination of the appellant, belittling comments to defence counsel, and persistent challenging of the appellant's account prevented him from presenting his version of events.

The convictions were set aside and a new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation at a Law Ball event.

The Crown alleged the accused sucker-punched the complainant without provocation, causing a laceration requiring stitches.

The defence argued the altercation was a consensual fight that escalated from prior interactions during the evening.

The court found the complainant was not a credible witness, having been evasive and untruthful on numerous material points.

The court accepted the accused's evidence that the fight was consensual, arising from the complainant's inappropriate sexual conduct toward a woman at the event and subsequent verbal and physical escalation between the two men.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assault was unprovoked or that the accused intended to cause serious bodily harm.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with Threaten Death, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, Disobey Court Order, and Criminal Harassment.

The charges arose from allegations that the accused pressured his estranged spouse over custody and access to their two young children.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct from 2012, including the dissemination of nude photographs of the complainant at her workplace.

The court admitted evidence of the 2012 schoolyard incident as prior discreditable conduct, finding it strikingly similar in detail and highly probative of motive and identity, while excluding other earlier misconduct as insufficiently distinctive.

A Hamilton Police officer with approximately two years of experience was charged with assault causing bodily harm after punching a suspect in the face during an arrest.

The suspect, a 35-year-old man with mental health issues, had spat on the officer.

The officer delivered three punches total: one immediately after being spat upon (conceded as reasonable by the Crown), and two additional punches while the suspect was on the ground and handcuffed.

The court found the latter two punches were excessive and not protected by section 25 of the Criminal Code, as they were delivered in retribution rather than for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either of the two excessive punches caused the suspect's facial fracture, which required surgery.

The officer was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm but convicted of the lesser included offence of assault.

The applicant sought to vary the conditions of a peace bond imposed following a charge of indecent communication.

The peace bond prohibited contact with the complainant and attendance at her residence or place of employment.

The applicant requested permission to attend the Ontario Works office in Vaughan where the complainant was employed.

The court refused the application, noting that alternative Ontario Works offices were available in the applicant's area of residence and that permitting the variation would defeat the protective purpose of the peace bond.

The accused was tried on a single count of breaching condition (iv) of his recognizance of bail, which required him not to be away from his place of residence except in the company of one of his sureties.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder and released on bail with strict conditions including electronic monitoring.

The issue was whether the accused was in breach when he left his surety in a parked car outside a school and entered the building alone to speak with his former basketball coach for approximately 5-10 minutes.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting arguments that he was in compliance with the condition, that his misunderstanding constituted a mistake of fact rather than law, and that any breach was de minimis.

The accused sought release on bail following charges including forcible entry, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of prohibited weapons, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and forcible confinement.

The Crown alleged the accused was the main perpetrator in a violent home invasion and assault that resulted in serious injuries to the victim.

The accused testified in his own defence, claiming limited involvement and self-defence.

The court found the Crown's case reasonably strong but granted bail with stringent conditions, including residence outside Toronto with a substantial surety and monitoring requirements.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on charges of second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault arising from a violent street attack on September 30, 2013, outside Sang's Restaurant in Toronto.

The attack involved six assailants attacking three victims, resulting in the death of Danny La from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both defendants to trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault charges, but rejected the attempted murder charge and the Crown's theory of constructive first degree murder based on forcible confinement.

The accused, charged with five indictable offences including assault, mischief, threatening death, and breaching bail conditions, sought release on bail.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the accused had failed to meet his onus under the reverse onus provisions.

The proposed plan of release, involving three sureties and house arrest, was deemed inadequate given the serious nature of the allegations, the accused's apparent disregard for court orders, and the sureties' lack of knowledge regarding the accused's activities and lifestyle.

The court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the accused would commit further criminal offences endangering public safety, particularly that of the vulnerable complainant.

The defendant was charged with mischief, escape from lawful custody, assault causing bodily harm, obstructing a peace officer, and two counts of assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist lawful arrest, arising from an incident at Union Station where he attempted to board a departing GO Transit train.

The Crown abandoned the mischief charge mid-trial.

The court found that the defendant's arrest was unlawful because the transit officers lacked reasonable grounds to believe he had committed mischief.

The court rejected key aspects of the officers' testimony as unreliable and contradicted by video evidence.

Finding the arrest unlawful, the defendant's physical resistance was justified, and he was acquitted of all charges.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defendant was charged with attempted murder under s. 239 of the Criminal Code for an alleged assault on the complainant on August 18, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence of a brutal beating with a wooden board that resulted in serious injuries including a lacerated liver, broken ribs, broken arm, and head injury requiring a three-and-a-half-week coma.

The defendant did not testify but called one witness.

The central issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, or whether the evidence only supported a committal on the lesser charge of aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown charged William Pav and Dylan Violo with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on College Street in Toronto on January 13, 2013, where the defendants allegedly participated in a swarming attack on Joseph Kau.

A directed verdict was granted on the assault with a weapon charge against Violo.

The trial focused on identification evidence and was corroborated by DNA evidence linking the defendants' clothing and Pav's hands to the victim's blood.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault causing bodily harm but acquitted Pav of assault with a weapon due to insufficient evidence of weapon use.