Christine Mainville

The appellant appealed her summary conviction findings of guilt for assault and assault causing bodily harm, arguing that the trial judge's written reasons, delivered approximately 11 months after the guilty verdicts, should not be considered on appeal as they were divorced from the reasoning that led to the verdicts.

Applying the framework from R. v. Teskey, the appeal court found that the repeated promises of imminent delivery of reasons followed by repeated failures to deliver, the lack of any satisfactory explanation for the delays, the nature of the evidence requiring detailed credibility and factual analysis, and deficiencies in the written reasons themselves constituted cogent evidence rebutting the presumption of judicial integrity.

The Crown conceded that the brief oral reasons at verdict were insufficient for appellate review under R. v. Sheppard.

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

The applicant sought to introduce Signal messages exchanged with the complainant before and after an alleged sexual assault.

The complainant objected to the admissibility of certain exhibits under sections 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined that messages sent before the encounter (Exhibit 1) were admissible under both regimes as they were relevant to the issue of consent and did not engage prohibited twin myth reasoning.

Messages sent after the encounter (Exhibit 3) were found not to constitute a record under section 278.1 and were therefore admissible without requiring an application under section 278.92.

The court also addressed the effect of a partial waiver of privacy rights by the complainant.

The accused was charged with administering a noxious substance with intent to aggrieve or annoy, and two counts of breaching the peace.

The Crown alleged that the accused sprayed an aerosol substance (believed to be bug spray) at a complainant on a neighbourhood street.

The defence conceded that the accused directed the spray at the complainant and thereby assaulted her, and that he breached court-imposed peace bond and probation terms.

However, the defence argued that the Crown failed to prove the specific elements of administering a noxious substance.

The court found that while the accused administered a substance to the complainant, the substance was not noxious as required by the Criminal Code.

The court acquitted on the noxious substance charge but convicted on the breach of peace counts, staying one count pursuant to Kienapple principles.

The accused was charged with three offences: fraudulently possessing computer passwords obtained from the Genesis Market (an online marketplace for stolen credentials obtained through malware), possessing four forged pieces of identification, and breaching a probation order prohibiting possession of identity documents not legally issued in his name.

The Crown proved that the accused controlled two Genesis Market accounts and purchased thousands of stolen credentials using cryptocurrency funded through a Coinbase account registered in his name.

Four forged driver's licenses bearing the accused's photograph but different names were found in his residence.

The court found the accused guilty on all three counts after determining that the electronic evidence from the Genesis Market database was authentic and reliable, that the accused controlled the relevant accounts, and that the forged identification documents were clearly counterfeit.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit of 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath samples, statements, and observations, alleging violations of her Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the police failed to make a formal breath demand as required by section 320.28(1) of the Criminal Code, delayed implementation of the right to counsel beyond the earliest reasonable opportunity, and that a breath technician undermined the accused's confidence in duty counsel.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the breath test results, statements regarding alcohol consumption, and observations made at the police station, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was convicted after trial of aggravated assault and failing to comply with probation.

He stabbed the victim four times in the back on February 9, 2024, at a makeshift shelter near Jane and Finch in Toronto.

The court found a causal link between the accused's schizophrenia and the offence, despite the Crown's submission that the accused's calm demeanor on video surveillance negated any such connection.

The court imposed a three-year sentence, accounting for the accused's mental illness, strong family support, good character when stable, difficult pre-sentence custody conditions, and rehabilitation prospects, while also recognizing the serious and unprovoked nature of the attack and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a former employee at his meat processing company.

The complainant alleged that the accused approached her from behind on two occasions, smelling her hair, placing his hands on her shoulder and neck, and touching her arms.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found significant inconsistencies and reliability concerns in the complainant's testimony, including contradictory accounts of how she left the office, whether she spoke to her husband, and when she disclosed the incident.

The court also noted that the complainant failed to initially mention observing an erection until after her memory was refreshed by her police statement.

While the accused's testimony contained some implausible elements, the court found it could not reject his denial.

The Crown failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and an acquittal was entered.

This decision addresses multiple criminal charges against Yinuo Liu, including assault, forcible confinement, criminal harassment, possession of weapons for a dangerous purpose, and impersonation of a peace officer.

The case primarily hinges on the credibility and reliability of the complainant, Ms. Yu, whose testimony was found to be inconsistent, evasive, and motivated by animus and retribution.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence, including text messages, social media posts, and police testimony, and found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Liu intended to impersonate a police officer or that he assaulted, confined, or harassed Ms. Yu.

The court acquitted Mr. Liu on all counts, emphasizing the importance of the presumption of innocence and the high standard of proof required in criminal cases.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Rahjon Ceballo of assault with a weapon based on eyewitness testimony, surveillance video, and police evidence.

The key issue was identity, which was established through a combination of Mr. Tesfamariam’s detailed observations, photographs, and video footage showing the accused wearing distinctive clothing and holding a butter knife.

The court found the accused carried and used the butter knife to threaten or intimidate the victim, satisfying the elements of assault with a weapon under the Criminal Code.

This decision addresses the issue of identity in a stabbing incident where the accused, Dwumo Amankwaah, was charged with attempted murder, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown withdrew the attempted murder charge but sought conviction for aggravated assault as a lesser included offence.

The court carefully analyzed the reliability and credibility of the victim's identification, corroborated by surveillance footage and DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault and failure to comply with probation, staying the assault with a weapon charge under the Kienapple principle.

The judgment also clarifies the requirements for lesser included offences in attempted murder charges, particularly regarding aggravated assault.

The accused, Paul Greenberg, was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle after a collision on the Don Valley Parkway.

The Crown relied on dash-camera footage and police testimony, while the accused testified in his defence, claiming he was driving marginally above the speed limit and was cut off by another vehicle.

The court rejected the accused's characterization of his speed and driving, finding that he drove at an excessive speed, repeatedly overtook vehicles by changing lanes, and failed to adjust his driving despite the presence of another speeding vehicle.

The court concluded that his driving constituted a marked departure from the standard of a reasonably prudent driver and endangered the public, leading to a conviction.

Si-Qi Liang pleaded guilty to one count of possessing child pornography.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the quantity and explicit nature of the material, and mitigating factors such as his lack of a criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and low risk of re-offending as assessed by a forensic psychiatrist.

The court emphasized the child-centered approach to sentencing in child pornography cases, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence.

A conditional sentence was deemed unfit.

Liang was sentenced to 9.5 months of incarceration, followed by 18 months of probation, a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registry Act (SOIRA) order, and a DNA order.

The court declined to impose broader Section 161 prohibition orders but imposed specific internet restrictions for three years.

The accused, a registered physiotherapist, was charged with one count of sexual assault during a physiotherapy treatment session.

The complainant alleged non-consensual touching of her breasts and lips.

The accused denied the allegations, asserting all touching was therapeutic and consented to.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused.

The complainant's testimony was found to have significant reliability issues and inconsistencies, including denials of complaining about shoulder pain despite evidence, and contradictory accounts of events.

In contrast, the accused's testimony was deemed credible and consistent.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the mens rea for sexual assault and whether the touching occurred in circumstances of a sexual nature.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted.

The applicant, charged with sexual assault, sought authorization under ss. 278.92-278.94 of the Criminal Code to use Human Rights Tribunal documents at trial.

The court ruled that the Human Rights Tribunal application and reply, being public filings, did not constitute "records" under s. 278.1 of the Criminal Code, and therefore did not require vetting under the s. 278.92 regime.

The defence was permitted to use the redacted Tribunal documents at trial.

The applicant, charged with dangerous driving, brought a Garofoli/Charter application to exclude evidence seized from his dash-camera and EDR, alleging a violation of s. 8 of the Charter.

The challenge focused on the facial and sub-facial validity of the search warrant.

The court found that while a dash-camera may attract a reasonable expectation of privacy, the warrant was validly issued based on sufficient grounds regarding the applicant's dangerous driving preceding the collision.

The court also found no material non-disclosure or bad faith by the police.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused, Yonathan Debessay, was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking crack cocaine, fentanyl, and crystal methamphetamine, and possession of the proceeds of crime over $5,000.

These charges stemmed from drugs found in a stolen car he was driving, with two other occupants, one of whom fled the scene.

Debessay testified, denying knowledge of the drugs and claiming he was temporarily driving the car for an intoxicated acquaintance.

The court found that while aspects of his testimony were implausible, it could not be entirely discounted.

The Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Debessay had knowledge or control of the drugs, or was involved in a joint venture.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted on all counts.

The accused, charged with dangerous driving, brought a motion seeking leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiants of the Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant.

The warrant was used to seize and analyze dash cam and Event Data Recorder (EDR) data from his vehicle following a collision.

The accused intended to challenge the sub-facial validity of the warrant, alleging a violation of section 8 of the Charter due to material omissions and ambiguities in the ITO regarding the collision's circumstances, including the potential involvement of a third vehicle and the basis for inferring dangerous driving.

The court granted leave to cross-examine, finding a reasonable likelihood that such examination would elicit testimony tending to discredit the existence of reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant.

The accused, Mark Thompson, faced charges for possession of Schedule 1 and 3 substances for trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime.

He challenged his warrantless arrest and subsequent search, arguing violations of his s. 8 and s. 9 Charter rights.

The court found that the police lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, as the confidential informant's tip was vague and insufficiently corroborated by surveillance.

The police notes were found to be misleading, exacerbating the seriousness of the Charter breach.

Applying the Grant factors, the court determined that the seriousness of the police misconduct and the significant impact on the accused's liberty outweighed society's interest in the admission of the evidence, leading to its exclusion under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

This decision concerns an application by the accused, Kavit Shah, a registered physiotherapist charged with sexual assault, to admit the complainant's physiotherapy records at trial under sections 278.92-278.94 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown and Complainant opposed the application, primarily arguing a lack of proper evidentiary foundation for authenticity.

The court found that a hearsay affidavit from defence counsel's associate, along with the records obtained through police disclosure, provided a sufficient basis for the pre-trial admissibility assessment.

The court determined the records were relevant to the complainant's credibility and reliability, and that their significant probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of prejudice to the administration of justice, given the limited privacy interest in the records and the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

The application was granted, allowing the defence to use the records for cross-examination and to establish prior inconsistent statements, with authentication to be addressed at trial if the defence seeks to prove their contents for truth.

The accused, charged with drug trafficking and possession of proceeds of crime, filed a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of his warrantless arrest and search, which were based on confidential informant (CI) information.

The Crown invoked Step 6 of the Garofoli procedure to allow the court to consider redacted CI information, provided a sufficient judicial summary was disclosed to the defence.

The court assessed the sufficiency of the judicial summary, considering defence concerns regarding the recency of information, the CI's criminal record, the reliability of previous CI information, and the specificity of personal identifying information and modus operandi details.

The court found the updated judicial summary sufficient to enable the accused to challenge the grounds for his arrest while protecting the CI's identity.