Geocelyne Blythe Meyers

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.

This criminal trial concerned a charge of manslaughter against Ahmed Rafin following the fatal stabbing of Maahir Dosani during a schoolyard swarming incident.

The Crown argued unlawful act manslaughter, positing that Rafin either intentionally stabbed his attackers (with Dosani being an incidental victim) or committed offenses of weapon possession and threatening.

The defence contended that Rafin acted in self-defence and lacked the requisite intent.

The court found Rafin to be a credible witness, accepting his testimony that he displayed a knife to deter an angry, armed, and numerically superior crowd while attempting to retreat.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Rafin committed an unlawful act causing Dosani's death, leading to an acquittal.

The accused, R.S., was charged with sexual assault involving the complainant, A.P., a close family friend's daughter.

The complainant testified about an incident where the accused touched her breast, and earlier instances of slapping her bum.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, noting significant inconsistencies in the complainant's account regarding the timing and conclusion of the alleged incident, particularly concerning a phone call and her initial statement to the police.

These inconsistencies, deemed central to the complainant's narrative, undermined the reliability of her testimony.

Coupled with the accused's consistent denial, the court found that a reasonable doubt existed.

Consequently, the accused was acquitted of the sexual assault charge.

The accused, Lajos Gabor Marosi, was charged with unlawful entry into a dwelling, assault, and failure to comply with a release order.

The charges stemmed from an incident where Marosi, separated from his wife Renata Galamb and subject to a no-contact order, forcefully entered her residence to retrieve their child against her wishes.

During the incident, he struggled with Renata and her mother, took Renata's phone to prevent her from calling the police, and physically assaulted Renata.

The court found Marosi guilty on all counts, determining that he entered the dwelling without lawful excuse and with the requisite intent, that he knowingly or recklessly breached his no-contact order, and that the assault was not consensual nor justified by self-defence.

This criminal trial concerned a single count of sexual assault.

The complainant and the accused provided starkly different accounts of the events.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both witnesses, noting inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony regarding the showing of photographs, which undermined her reliability.

Despite the complainant's general credibility, the court found the accused's consistent and plausible account, coupled with the complainant's undermined reliability on a material issue, created a reasonable doubt.

The Crown failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The Ontario Court of Justice ruled on the Crown's application for a court-ordered assessment to determine if the defendant, Maxim Iltchenko, was Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) for two counts of threatening his mother, pursuant to s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant had previously been found guilty of the offences.

The Crown argued that Iltchenko's history of Bipolar Affective Disorder Type I, a previous NCR finding, his recent absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board, and the nature of the current threats (triggered by a stressful event and escalating in intensity) provided reasonable grounds to doubt his criminal responsibility.

The defence opposed, arguing insufficient evidence of mental disorder symptoms at the time of the offences.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding reasonable grounds to doubt Iltchenko's criminal responsibility, citing his long-standing mental disorder, the triggering event, and the "odd" or "bizarre" nature of the threats consistent with his documented psychotic episodes.

Malcom Lee was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The defence filed Charter applications, primarily alleging breaches of section 10(b) rights regarding access to counsel.

The court found no breach of the informational or implementational components of the right to counsel, or if there was a minor breach, the evidence would still be admissible under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed both offences based on observations of impairment, the unexplained collision, and breath readings.

The Crown sought directions regarding the disclosure of police records concerning a young person (M.A.) involved in an incident related to a murder charge against the accused.

The court determined that records pertaining to extrajudicial measures (EJM) taken with M.A. are presumptively non-disclosable under section 119(4) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) to protect the young person from stigmatization.

However, information about the underlying incident, such as a fight and its reason, and any animus between M.A. and the deceased, is disclosable and permissible for witness questioning, provided it does not reveal police involvement or EJM details.

The court suggested an Agreed Statement of Facts as a means to address the defence's need for full answer and defence without violating YCJA provisions.

The appellant, B.J.T., was convicted of two counts of sexual interference and two counts of sexual assault for shaving his daughter's pubic hair at her request in 2011 (when she was 13) and again in 2013 (when she was 15).

The trial judge struck down the mandatory minimum sentences as unconstitutional and imposed minimal sentences.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the 2011 sexual interference conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge failed to adequately address the specific intent requirement.

The Court dismissed appeals on the 2013 convictions and upheld the sentencing decisions, including the finding that the mandatory minimum sentences violated the Charter.

The appellant, B.J.T., was convicted of two counts of sexual interference and two counts of sexual assault for shaving his daughter's pubic hair at her request in 2011 (when she was 13) and again in 2013 (when she was 15).

The trial judge struck down the mandatory minimum sentences as unconstitutional and imposed minimal sentences.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the 2011 sexual interference conviction and ordered a new trial, finding the trial judge failed to adequately address the specific intent requirement.

The Court dismissed appeals on the 2013 convictions and upheld the sentencing decisions, including the finding that the mandatory minimum sentences violated the Charter.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code from a disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated July 16, 2018.

The appellant challenged the Board's finding of a direct connection between his substance abuse and his psychotic state at the time of the index offences, as well as the Board's conclusion that a significant threat to public safety remained.

The Court of Appeal upheld the Board's decision, finding it was reasonable for the Board to rely on the treating psychiatrist's opinion and to impose a conditional discharge given the appellant's progress balanced against ongoing risks.

An appeal under Part XX.1 of the Criminal Code against the disposition of the Ontario Review Board dated January 26, 2018 (amended February 26, 2018).

The appellant challenged the Board's order regarding his detention and conditions.

The Court of Appeal found that the Board's decision fell within the range of reasonable orders having regard to the totality of evidence and the Board's expertise.

The treating psychiatrist's concerns about the appellant's lack of initiative in addressing medical needs and absence of insight into his condition supported the Board's order to maintain hospital oversight to prevent the appellant from disengaging from treatment and presenting a significant risk of serious harm to the public.

The appeal was dismissed.