Bruce E. Pugsley

This ruling addresses an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms due to an alleged unreasonable delay in a two-day drink driving trial.

The court analyzed the timeline against the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in R. v. Jordan, which sets an 18-month presumptive ceiling for trials in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The defendant had initially scheduled trial dates within the Jordan guideline but requested an adjournment and waived delay, resulting in a total delay exceeding 24 months.

The court found the waiver was informed and unequivocal, and that the defendant's actions caused the delay.

Consequently, the court dismissed the stay application, emphasizing that delays caused by the defence waiver do not constitute a breach of section 11(b).

This is a sentencing decision for a defendant who pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of an accident causing death.

The defendant struck and killed a pedestrian, then fled the scene, concealed vehicle damage, and lied to avoid detection.

The court considered the principles of denunciation and deterrence, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's reprehensible conduct.

Despite the Crown seeking a nine-month jail sentence, the court imposed a 15-month conditional sentence of imprisonment, including strict house arrest and curfew, citing the defendant's remorse, lack of prior criminal record, and positive pre-sentence report, and noting recent legislative changes (Bill C5) widening the availability of conditional sentences.

Additional penalties included a driving prohibition, firearms prohibition, and DNA order.

B.H. was sentenced for sexual assault, making child pornography (victim was his 16-year-old daughter), and careless storage of a firearm.

The court considered an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Supplementary Agreed Statement of Facts.

The victim impact statement highlighted the profound harm caused to the victim and her family.

The court applied sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and specifically addressed the impact of R. v. Friesen on sentences for child sexual offences.

The court also applied Gladue principles, acknowledging the defendant's Indigenous heritage and its intergenerational effects, which led to a reduction in the otherwise proportionate sentence.

A global sentence of seven years incarceration was imposed, along with several ancillary orders.

In a criminal trial for failing to provide a breath sample, the Ontario Court of Justice acquitted the defendant.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's refusal was conditional on being allowed a sip of water, a request denied by police based on an unproven "rule" of the qualified technician.

The court determined that the refusal was not unequivocal and that the police had rushed to conclude a refusal without providing a "last chance warning" or recording the final interaction in the breath room.

The accused, Massimo Seibezzi, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Crown opposed the application.

The court applied the 'Bright Line' approach from R. v. Jordan, noting that the total delay of 16 months and 21 days was below the 18-month ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The defence failed to satisfy the onus to demonstrate that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, despite taking steps to expedite.

The court emphasized that stays below the ceiling should be rare and limited to clear cases, and that the Crown's actions in withdrawing a charge and consenting to re-election, which contributed to some delay, were in the spirit of Jordan.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The respondent father moved to vary a temporary child support order, seeking a reduction based on his decreased income after quitting his job.

He argued his decision to become underemployed was reasonable due to health issues and a desire for more time with the child.

The applicant mother sought to impute income, arguing the underemployment was intentional and unreasonable.

The court dismissed the respondent's motion, finding his explanation for the income reduction unreasonable, particularly given the timing shortly after a consent order for support.

The court imputed income to the respondent at his previous agreed-upon level.

The parties, parents of a toddler, brought cross-motions for temporary parenting time and decision-making.

The respondent father sought week-about residency and alleged the applicant mother had mental health issues and drug use.

The applicant mother sought supervised contact for the father and exclusion of his fiancé, citing unspecified concerns from the Children's Aid Society (CAS).

The court found both parties' affidavits unhelpful and criticized the applicant's attempt to use CAS as leverage.

Based on the parties' historical actions and CAS investigations finding no risk, the court ordered the child to reside primarily with the applicant mother, with a ramp-up schedule for the respondent father's parenting time.

The applicant was granted decision-making authority.

The court emphasized the need for parties to mature and focus on the child's best interests.

No costs were awarded.

Christian Dean faced a charge of driving with excess alcohol.

He brought a Charter application to exclude breath test evidence, alleging violations of his rights under sections 8 and 9 due to a delay in the Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand.

The court found the delay (approximately 5-7 minutes) was "reasonably necessary" in the context of the stop, applying the principles from R. v. Quansah.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no breach of rights.

Consequently, the defendant was found guilty.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a contested interim motion in a family law proceeding concerning grandparent contact.

The applicant (maternal grandmother) sought no costs, while the respondent (mother) sought $26,000, relying on a rejected offer to settle.

The court, applying the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, emphasized that while costs generally follow success, they should not create "litigation chill" in family law matters involving children's best interests.

The judge found the respondent's offer to settle "stingy" and effectively meaningless, thus not giving effect to Rule 18.

Considering the complexity, time engaged, and the applicant's resources, the court fixed costs at $10,000, payable by the applicant to the respondent (mother) within six months.

The respondent (father) was self-represented and neither paid nor received costs.

The applicant, a maternal grandmother, brought a motion seeking interim access to her grandchildren, mandatory disclosure of their medical and educational information, and the appointment of the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The children's parents (respondents) opposed the motion, characterizing the grandmother's past relationship with the children as toxic.

Applying the newly amended "best interests of the child" definition under section 24 of the Children's Law Reform Act, the court dismissed the applicant's motion.

The court found that forcing contact was not in the children's best interests at that time, citing the high level of conflict between the parties, the applicant's mixed motivations, the unified opposition from the extended family, allegations of family violence, and the children's expressed views.

The decision emphasized the deference owed to parental decisions regarding child contact unless overriding them is clearly required by the child's best interests.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and refusing a breath test.

The court dismissed the refusal charge due to significant police failures in implementing the defendant's right to counsel under the Charter, including not assisting in locating a named lawyer and failing to advise about duty counsel or the consequences of refusal.

However, the court found no Charter breach regarding the right to counsel at the roadside for the impaired driving charge, preferring the officer's testimony.

Based on civilian and police observations of erratic driving, signs of alcohol impairment (odour, bloodshot eyes, unsteadiness, slurred speech), and lack of judgment in leaving an accident scene, the defendant was found guilty of impaired driving.

Related Highway Traffic Act charges were also dismissed.

The applicant sought leave to amend his motion to change to include a request for custody of the child, with the respondent seeking to transfer the matter to Orillia and increase child support based on the applicant's higher disclosed income.

The court dismissed the applicant's motion to amend, finding no material change in circumstances warranting a custody claim.

The court granted the respondent's motion to transfer the matter to Orillia as the more convenient forum.

The court also increased child support from $446.83 to $540.13 per month based on the applicant's 2017 disclosed income of $58,430.00, effective November 1, 2018.

The applicant (mother) sought costs following a successful interim motion heard on September 10, 2018.

The respondent (father) was found to have deliberately underpaid child support, failed to comply with disclosure obligations, and lacked reasonable grounds for his allegations regarding the applicant's fitness as a parent.

The court awarded costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding the respondent's litigation conduct unreasonable and his defenses unsupported by the evidence.

The applicant mother brought an interim motion seeking to remove supervision restrictions on her access to the child, obtain return of the child's passport, and secure child support.

The respondent father had previously brought a motion to change the 2011 custody order, alleging concerns about the mother's drug use.

The court found no basis for continued supervision, ordered return of the passport, and set child support retroactively for 2017 based on the respondent's demonstrated income from that year.

The court expressed concern about the parties' adversarial conduct and the impact on the child.

The applicant father and respondent mother, who never lived together, brought competing motions regarding temporary access and child support for their infant child.

The applicant sought gradually increasing unsupervised access without geographic restrictions.

The respondent sought extended supervised access at a family visit centre and various preconditions.

The court granted the applicant's motion in substantial part, ordering a phased transition from supervised to unsupervised access beginning with Saturday visits at the family visit centre, expanding to community access in Dufferin County and Peel Region, and eventually to the Greater Toronto Area.

The court increased child support to reflect the applicant's increased income and ordered proportionate contribution to daycare expenses.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents recognizing each other's roles and building trust for the child's benefit.

A 15-year-old youth was sentenced for criminal negligence causing death after stealing a vehicle and driving at extreme speed (148-150 km/h in an 80 km/h zone) on Highway 10 in Caledon, resulting in a crash that killed his 12-year-old passenger.

The defendant was under a release order prohibiting him from occupying the driver's seat of any motor vehicle at the time of the offense.

The court imposed a sentence of 18 months custody and supervision (168 days in custody and 85 days under supervision), followed by two years probation with conditions including a six-year driving prohibition, 100 hours community service, and a probation review hearing.

The court credited 295 days of pre-trial custody on a one-to-one basis.

The applicant sought an order directing the court administration to accept an adoption application for an adult child and to dispense with the consent of the child's natural father.

The applicant resides in Newfoundland and Labrador while the adult child resides in Ontario.

The court found it lacked jurisdiction to make the adoption order due to the mandatory residency requirement in section 146(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, which prohibits the court from making an adoption order on the application of a person who is not a resident of Ontario.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of more than 30 grams of marijuana, possession of under 3 kilograms of marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, and trafficking.

Following a RIDE checkpoint stop where the officer detected a strong odour of marijuana, the accused's vehicle was searched and five one-pound bags of marijuana were found in the trunk.

The court found the accused guilty of possession and possession for the purpose of trafficking, but dismissed the trafficking charge due to lack of evidence of actual trafficking.

The court rejected Charter arguments regarding the lawfulness of the arrest and search, finding the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the odour of marijuana combined with other observations.

The court also found no breach of the right to counsel despite a brief delay in providing the caution.

The defendant was charged with assault and breach of probation arising from an incident on January 22, 2014, involving his common law spouse.

The Crown alleged the defendant assaulted the complainant in the basement laundry room after she refused to return his car keys when he was intoxicated.

The defendant claimed the injuries resulted from a mutual struggle and accidental contact.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. test and found the complainant's evidence clear, reliable, and corroborated by physical evidence, while the defendant's evidence was evasive and self-serving.

The court convicted the defendant of both assault and breach of the probation order's term to keep the peace and be of good behaviour, though it found the choking allegation was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial proceeded as a blended trial and Charter application.

The defence challenged the admissibility of breath test results on two grounds: first, that the tests were not taken as soon as practicable as required by the Criminal Code; and second, that the defendant's privacy rights under section 8 of the Charter were breached by video recording in the police cell while using the toilet.

The court found that the breath tests were taken as soon as practicable and that no Charter breach occurred.

The defendant was convicted.