G.P. Renwick

The offender was found guilty of sexual assault, assault, and uttering threats against his former intimate partner.

Prior to sentencing, the offender absconded and the sentencing proceeded in his absence.

The court emphasized the gravity of the sexual assault, which involved forced penetration, and the aggravating context of intimate partner violence.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 5 years imprisonment, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, a no-contact order, and a 20-year SOIRA registration.

The defendant brought an application under section 11(b) of the Charter alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 26 months and 13 days.

The court deducted periods of defence delay, including time for a missed pre-trial, a refused trial date, and a portion of the delay attributed to the defendant's failure to proactively raise section 11(b) concerns for over 14 months after the trial date was set.

The net delay was calculated at 17 months and 28 days, which fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials.

The application was dismissed.

At the start of a robbery trial, the Crown brought a Seaboyer application to adduce evidence regarding the complainant's occupation as a sex worker and the sexual service performed prior to the alleged robbery.

The court held that the statutory regime under s. 276 of the Criminal Code did not apply because robbery is not an enumerated offence and the circumstances did not implicate a listed sexual offence.

The court further held that the common law principles from Seaboyer did not require an application in this context, as the ordinary rules of relevance, materiality, and admissibility would sufficiently protect the complainant's privacy and the accused's fair trial rights.

The Crown's application was dismissed as unnecessary.

The defendant was tried on charges of invitation to sexual touching and breach of a prohibition order.

The child complainant alleged she spent the night at the defendant's apartment and he propositioned her the next morning.

The defendant denied she entered his home.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the sexual touching charge due to reliability concerns with the complainant's evidence.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of breaching the s. 161 prohibition order, rejecting the argument that the contact was de minimus.

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences after an undercover police officer posing as a 14-year-old boy on social media applications received sexually explicit communications and images.

The Crown's case on identity was entirely circumstantial, relying on the use of the accused's phone number, his likeness in the images, and his residence.

The court found that while the evidence was cogent, the lack of metadata, the failure to investigate another resident's devices, and the possibility of shared login credentials left a reasonable doubt as to whether the accused was the person communicating with the officer.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The defendant, a high school principal charged with offences relating to an alleged hug and kiss of a young person, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 19 months and 20 days.

The court deducted approximately 5 months of delay solely attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and a brief period of defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 14 months, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court then considered whether the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

Although the court found that the defendant took meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings and criticized the prosecution for a lack of diligence, it ultimately concluded that the 14-month net delay was not inordinate given the serious nature of the charges and the typical intake periods.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol after his vehicle was found in a ditch.

The court dismissed a Charter application alleging an unlawful roadside screening, finding the officer had a reasonable suspicion of alcohol in the accused's body based on his stumbling, slurred speech, and the smell of alcohol.

However, the court acquitted the accused on both charges.

The Crown failed to prove the breath samples were taken within two hours of driving, precluding reliance on the presumption of accuracy.

Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to prove the accused was the driver or that his ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.

The accused was charged with operating a conveyance with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

A police officer investigated the accused in a remote parking lot and delayed informing him of the reason for his detention and his right to counsel due to officer safety concerns.

The court found a violation of the accused's section 10(a) Charter rights, but no violations of sections 8, 9, or 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2).

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and excess blood alcohol concentration following a motor vehicle collision.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 8 and 10(b).

The court found that the police unnecessarily delayed advising the accused of his right to counsel and failed to take breath samples as soon as practicable.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the breath test results under s. 24(2), resulting in an acquittal on the over 80 charge.

However, based on civilian and emergency personnel evidence of the collision and the accused's physical signs of impairment, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation.

The accused was charged with assaulting his common law partner causing bodily harm, and assaulting and threatening his child.

The trial involved conflicting evidence, including testimony and videotaped statements from two child witnesses, and testimony from the accused.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility.

The court rejected the accused's testimony and relied on the videotaped statement of one child, corroborated by circumstantial evidence including photographs of injuries and the victim's unresponsiveness.

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his partner, but acquitted of the charges relating to the child.

The 20-year-old offender was found guilty of uttering a threat to damage his mother's property and three firearms offences, including possession of a loaded, prohibited handgun with an obliterated serial number.

The offences occurred during a familial conflict while the offender was on probation for a prior weapons offence.

The court weighed the extreme danger of the unsecured, loaded firearm against the offender's youth, remorse, and rehabilitative prospects.

The offender was sentenced to a global term of 36 months' imprisonment, reduced by 765 days of enhanced pre-trial custody credit, leaving 330 days to serve, followed by 18 months of probation.

The accused was charged with four offences, including possession of a loaded restricted firearm with an obliterated serial number and threatening to destroy property.

The charges arose after the accused's mother called 9-1-1 during a dispute, leading police to discover a loaded handgun in plain view on a dresser in the accused's bedroom.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence, including the location of the firearm near the accused's health card and clothing, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was in knowing possession of the firearm.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The Ontario Provincial Police applied for a Production Order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code in relation to a fraud investigation known as 'Project Gundy'.

The investigation concerned syndicated mortgage investments in Davies developments, where investors were allegedly misled and funds diverted.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe a fraud over $5,000 occurred and that evidence would be found in records held by the court-appointed receiver, KSV Kofman Inc. The application for the Production Order was granted.

The young person, while in custody at a youth centre, was charged with three counts of assaulting a peace officer.

The incident occurred when officers attempted to physically contain the young person after he refused to surrender a lighter he had secreted on his person.

The court reviewed testimony from two youth services officers and video surveillance footage.

The court found the officers' testimony credible and corroborated by the video evidence, which showed the young person punching at the officers.

The court rejected the suggestion of self-defence and found the young person guilty of the assaults.

The defendant, charged with driving with excess blood alcohol, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total gross delay was approximately 25 months.

The court applied the Jordan framework and deducted 55 weeks of delay attributable to the defence, including periods where the defence was unavailable or sought adjournments not legitimately taken to respond to the charges.

The net delay of 12.5 months fell well below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed.

The young person was charged with possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose after being found with a loaded BB gun concealed in his pants at a community centre.

The court rejected the young person's testimony that he possessed the BB gun innocently after shooting pop cans.

Applying the W.(D.) framework for credibility and the Villaroman test for circumstantial evidence, the court concluded the only reasonable inference was that the young person possessed the imitation firearm to use and intimidate others.

The young person was found guilty.

Following a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to commit the accused to stand trial for possession of cocaine, ketamine, and oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime over $5000.

The defence conceded there was sufficient evidence for simple possession but argued the lack of expert evidence regarding drug quantities precluded committal for trafficking.

The court held that a properly instructed jury could reasonably infer the purpose of trafficking from the circumstantial evidence, including the presence of a digital scale, baggies, large amounts of hidden cash, and police observations of a suspected drug transaction.

The accused was committed to stand trial on all counts.

The accused, a massage therapist, was charged with two counts of sexual assault involving two different clients.

The court first ruled that the accused's videotaped statement to police upon arrest was admissible to show his reaction and state of mind, but not for the truth of its contents.

Applying the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, the court found both complainants credible and noted striking similarities in their accounts.

However, the court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding the first complainant's allegation due to frailties in her evidence and general corroboration from the accused's police statement.

The court found the accused guilty of sexually assaulting the second complainant, rejecting his general denial and finding her evidence compelling and reliable.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b).

The accused argued that the police failed to accommodate his limited English comprehension, failed to facilitate his right to counsel by not allowing him to speak to a friend, and arbitrarily detained him for seven hours after breath testing.

The court dismissed the applications, finding that the accused sufficiently understood his rights, the police made reasonable efforts to contact his friend for a lawyer's name before the accused spoke to duty counsel, and the continued detention was justified given the accused's high blood alcohol level and inability to care for himself.

The Ontario Provincial Police applied for a Production Order under s. 487.014 of the Criminal Code in relation to a fraud investigation involving syndicated mortgage investments.

The court reviewed the Information to Obtain (ITO) and found reasonable grounds to believe a fraud over $5,000 occurred and that evidence would likely be found in the records of the suspect's accountant.

The court granted the Production Order, noting the strong public interest in investigating potential Ponzi schemes.