Who is Justice Bruce E. Pugsley?

Justice Bruce E. Pugsley is an Ontario judge at the Court of Justice with 42 decisions on record from 2012 to 2025. Key areas include criminal and quasi-criminal law, family and matrimonial law, civil litigation - defendant.

What court does Justice Bruce E. Pugsley sit in?

Justice Bruce E. Pugsley sits at the Court of Justice.

What areas of law does Justice Bruce E. Pugsley specialize in?

Justice Bruce E. Pugsley's most common areas include Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law (32 cases), Family and Matrimonial Law (10 cases), Civil Litigation - Defendant (4 cases). Justice Bruce E. Pugsley has handled 42 cases across 5 practice areas.

How many cases has Justice Bruce E. Pugsley decided?

Justice Bruce E. Pugsley has 42 reported decisions from 2012 to 2025.

What lawyers frequently appear before Justice Bruce E. Pugsley?

Top counsel appearing before Justice Bruce E. Pugsley include Liana Marcon, Danielle Marie Garbaty, Self-represented.

ProGet 99.9% Accurate AI Research viaChatGPT

minicounsel

Justice Bruce E. Pugsley

Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law

Family and Matrimonial Law

Civil Litigation - Defendant

Human Rights

Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Act matters

Bruce E. Pugsley

Since 2012

Background

Justice Bruce E. Pugsley has presided over 42 cases in the Ontario Court of Justice from 2012 through 2025. His docket has been predominantly criminal and quasi-criminal in nature, with a significant focus on sentencing and trials. His recent activity shows a marked decrease, with no cases in the last year and a declining trend in case volume. Counsel should be prepared for a judge with extensive experience in criminal law and family law matters, who applies established legal frameworks rigorously and expects clear, evidence-based submissions.

cases · 14 yrs · ONCJ

Trial

Motion

Costs

Appeal

Sentencing

42 total

R. v. Thaiyagarajah, 2012 ONCJ 282

The defendant was convicted after plea of internet child luring contrary to Section 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant communicated online with a 17-year-old complainant under false pretences, claiming to be a pornographic modelling agent, and arranged to meet her for sexual purposes.

The defendant also engaged with a fictional 14-year-old character created by police.

The Crown sought 9 to 12 months imprisonment plus three years probation, emphasizing general deterrence and denunciation.

The defence argued for a lengthy conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence to be served in the community with strict conditions, including electronic monitoring, house arrest for the first nine months, curfew for the second nine months, community service, counselling, and restrictions on internet use.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offence and need for deterrence against the defendant's guilty plea, lack of prior relevant record, and prospects for rehabilitation in the community.

ONCJApr 5, 2012

R. v. Timmins and Gillis, 2012 ONCJ 168

Two defendants jointly charged with assault causing bodily harm brought separate applications under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings based on breach of their right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The offence occurred on April 18, 2010, and the application was heard on February 14, 2012, representing over 20 months of delay.

The court found approximately 12 months of unjustified delay after accounting for neutral time and inherent case requirements.

The delay was primarily attributable to the crown's failure to recognize that an essential witness required a Punjabi interpreter, leading to the adjournment of the first trial date set for May 19, 2011.

The court granted the applications and entered a stay of proceedings for both defendants.

ONCJFeb 14, 2012