D. Morgan

The accused was charged with one count of sexual assault following an encounter on his boat.

The accused admitted to the sexual activity but maintained it was consensual.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and found the accused's evidence to be straightforward and reliable, while noting factual gaps and inconsistencies in the complainant's narrative.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent, resulting in an acquittal.

This is a sentencing decision for Rychez Leslie, a young Black man, who pleaded guilty to possessing a loaded restricted firearm and failing to stop for police.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, particularly deterrence, denunciation, restraint, and rehabilitation, in light of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Morris regarding social context evidence and anti-Black racism.

Despite the seriousness of the firearm offence, the court found that Leslie's strong rehabilitative potential, lack of prior record, and positive post-arrest activities, coupled with his lived experiences in a high-violence community, mitigated his personal responsibility.

The court imposed a Conditional Sentence Order (CSO) of 2 years less 1 day for the firearm offence, concurrent with a 6-month CSO for the driving offence, followed by a 1-year probation, a 1-year driving prohibition, and a lifetime firearms prohibition.

L.P., a young person, was found guilty of sexually assaulting H.B. The Crown sought a six-month custody and supervision order, 12 months probation, a two-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The defence argued for a probation order.

The court found the sexual assault to be a violent offence causing serious bodily harm, opening the gateway for a custodial sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

Considering L.P.'s lack of remorse and insight into the harm caused, the court imposed a six-month custody and supervision order (four months open custody, two months community supervision) followed by 18 months probation, a two-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The applicant, G.H., sought to re-elect his mode of trial from the Ontario Court of Justice to the Superior Court of Justice with a judge and jury, asserting a right to do so under s. 561(2) of the Criminal Code, or alternatively, requesting a transfer under s. 555(1).

The Crown opposed, arguing the trial had already commenced for the purposes of s. 561(2) due to substantive pre-trial applications (s. 278.4 and s. 714.2 hearings).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the trial had commenced with the substantive pre-trial applications, thus G.H. no longer had a right to re-elect without Crown consent.

The court also declined to exercise its discretionary power under s. 555(1), finding no sufficient basis to disrupt proceedings, despite the applicant's concerns about COVID-19 and judicial re-assignment.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mgs per 100 mls of blood and impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was arrested following a motor vehicle collision after police observed him attempting to reverse the vehicle from the scene.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging excessive use of force during arrest, seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence or a stay of proceedings.

The court found no breach of section 7 Charter rights, as the police use of force was reasonable and proportional given the dynamic emergency circumstances.

The court also rejected the accused's alternative arguments for exclusion of evidence under section 24(2) and found the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of circumstances.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a breath demand made by a peace officer to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device, contrary to the Criminal Code.

The Crown also proceeded on associated provincial offences alleging breach of a probation order prohibiting driving with a blood alcohol concentration above zero and failure to provide a breath sample as a novice driver.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, arguing that his rights to counsel were violated while awaiting the arrival of the approved screening device.

The trial judge found no Charter breach.

However, on the substantive issue, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally failed to provide a sample, as opposed to merely being unable to do so.

The defendant was acquitted of all charges.

A 16-year-old youth was charged with assault causing bodily harm after punching two individuals during a basketball game at a school.

The youth intervened to protect his cousin and struck one victim in the face, causing a broken jaw requiring surgery, and struck another victim in the teeth.

The youth pleaded guilty to the charge.

The Crown sought two years' probation with conditions, 120 hours of community service, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The defence sought a conditional discharge to preserve scholarship opportunities.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with terms of discharge including reporting to a youth worker, no contact with victims, anger management counselling, 120 hours of community service, a weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, balancing rehabilitation principles with accountability.