D. Hotz

This criminal trial concerned James Hutchinson, charged with seven offences including assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement of children, and choking an adult.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the adult complainant and the children via transcribed statements, and the defendant.

The adult complainant's evidence was found unreliable due to alcohol consumption and inconsistencies.

The defendant's evidence was largely accepted as credible.

The court found the defendant guilty of assault causing bodily harm against one child due to excessive force (leaving bruises), three counts of forcible confinement of the children in a cold cellar (deemed excessive discipline), and one count of assault by choking the adult complainant, despite the defendant's claim of attempting to ensure her safety.

The defendant was acquitted of two counts of assault causing bodily harm against the other two children due to insufficient evidence of unreasonable force or injury.

The Crown brought a count-to-count similar act application during a jury trial for attempted abduction, seeking to use evidence from one count to prove criminal intent on another.

The self-represented accused made no submissions, but amicus curiae and s. 486.3 counsel raised concerns about the timing of the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the evidence had moderately high probative value, its prejudicial effect was very high because the application was raised after the defence had closed its case, potentially impacting defence strategy and cross-examination.

The Crown prosecuted two defendants for assault on a bar patron.

The incident occurred inside the Less Than Level bar in Oakville on March 16, 2013.

The defendants were charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code, with one defendant also charged with breach of probation.

The Crown relied on testimony from two sober witnesses: the bouncer and the bar manager, who observed the defendants repeatedly kicking the victim while he lay defenseless on the ground.

The defendants presented no evidence.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault and one guilty of breach of probation based on the credible testimony of the sober witnesses.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts arising from a home invasion: break and enter with intent to commit robbery, forcible confinement of an 86-year-old victim, and assault of a police officer resisting arrest.

The offender also acknowledged four additional counts.

The victim was confined for 4-5 hours, threatened with a knife held to her throat, physically assaulted, and suffered lasting psychological trauma.

The offender had a history of mental health issues, substance abuse, and prior criminal convictions.

A forensic psychiatric assessment found the offender to be at high risk to re-offend.

The court imposed an 8-year penitentiary sentence on top of 9 months pre-trial custody, with concurrent sentences on the other counts.

A lifetime weapons prohibition and DNA order were imposed.

A motion hearing regarding the respondent mother's legal aid certificate in a child protection proceeding.

The respondent mother's lawyer was removed as counsel of record in February 2012 due to a breakdown in the solicitor-client relationship, six months before the scheduled trial.

Legal Aid Ontario refused the mother's request for a new lawyer, citing that a breakdown in the lawyer-client relationship is not sufficient grounds for a change of counsel.

The court found that the respondent mother has a constitutional right to counsel and that all four criteria from New Brunswick v. J.G. appear to be satisfied.

The matter was adjourned to allow Legal Aid Ontario and the Attorney General of Ontario to make submissions on whether the court should appoint publicly funded counsel.