Jeffrey Alan Costain

The accused was found guilty of impaired driving causing bodily harm after a single motor vehicle collision that resulted in life-altering injuries to her passenger.

The Crown sought an 18-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the recent Bill C-5 amendments that made conditional sentences available for this offence.

Despite the serious aggravating factors and the paramount objectives of denunciation and deterrence, the court found that a 21-month conditional sentence with strict house arrest and GPS monitoring was appropriate due to the accused's young age, significant rehabilitation efforts during pandemic-related delays, and history of trauma.

A 3-year probation order and a driving prohibition were also imposed.

R.G. was sentenced for 10 offences of sexual abuse against his daughter, spanning an eight-year period from when she was 9 or 10 until just before her 17th birthday.

The offences included incest, sexual assault with a weapon, and unlawful confinement, involving significant physical interference and violence.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the egregious breach of trust, the victim's young age, the duration and frequency of abuse, and the profound impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included the offender's steady employment history and family support, as well as time spent in pre-sentence custody and under restrictive bail conditions, including hardships due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Applying principles from R. v. Friesen, the court imposed a total sentence of 10 years, with a credit of 2 years for pre-sentence custody and stringent bail conditions, resulting in 8 years of imprisonment yet to be served.

Ancillary orders included a communication prohibition, DNA order, lifetime weapons prohibition, and Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance.

The applicant, R.G., sought an order to reopen his trial and declare a mistrial after being found guilty of 10 counts of sexual abuse but before sentencing.

He presented fresh evidence, including cell phone records and affidavits, to establish an alibi for some charges and challenge the complainant's credibility.

The court applied the rigorous "exceptional circumstances" and "clearest of cases" test for vacating a guilt adjudication, incorporating the Palmer criteria for fresh evidence.

The court found that the proposed evidence could have been obtained with due diligence prior to trial and that the application was an attempt to reverse tactical decisions made by the defence.

The application was dismissed, as the test for reopening the trial or declaring a mistrial was not met.

The Attorney General of Ontario brought an application under the Civil Remedies Act, 2001 for the civil forfeiture of approximately $3.7 million held in the respondents' bank accounts, alleging the funds were the proceeds or instruments of illegal online cannabis sales and money laundering.

The respondents had used a Hawala informal currency exchange to transfer legitimately earned Chinese currency into Canadian funds.

The court found that while a small portion of the funds could be traced to unlawful activity, the respondents were 'uninvolved interest holders' and 'responsible owners' who acquired the funds for fair value without knowledge of the illegal source.

The application for forfeiture was dismissed.

The Attorney General of Ontario sought forfeiture of the contents of several bank accounts under the Civil Remedies Act.

At the scheduled hearing, the court found that the AG had uploaded over 112,000 pages of unorganized and improperly formatted documents to CaseLines, rendering the electronic record unusable.

The court adjourned the hearing and issued detailed procedural directions for the proper organization, hyperlinking, and uploading of the electronic materials.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and criminal harassment arising from the dissolution of an intimate relationship.

The Crown proceeded on six counts, later withdrawing two counts of possession of cocaine.

At trial, the Crown further withdrew a charge of forcible confinement and a charge of criminal harassment dated March 18, 2019.

The court found the accused not guilty of assault with a weapon (thrown bar stool on March 14, 2019) and criminal harassment (repeated communications on March 29-30, 2019).

The court found insufficient evidence of mens rea for the assault charge and reasonable doubt regarding the accused's knowledge that his communications constituted harassment.

The defendant, Kevin Deonath, was charged with second-degree murder following the shooting death of Roy Khan.

The court examined whether the Crown proved the requisite intent for murder and disproved self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence indicated a struggle ensued after Khan pointed a loaded handgun at Deonath.

The court found that while an inference of intentional firing was available, another reasonable inference was that the gun discharged unintentionally during the struggle as Deonath defended himself.

Consequently, the Crown failed to prove intent for murder and failed to disprove lawful self-defence.

Deonath was acquitted.

The Crown brought an application seeking a finding of civil contempt against the CBC and Post Media for allegedly breaching publication bans issued in a criminal proceeding.

The media outlets had published articles about related family court proceedings which the Crown argued, when read with prior reporting, could identify the victims (the 'mosaic effect').

The Superior Court found it had inherent jurisdiction to hear the application and that proceeding by application was appropriate.

However, the court dismissed the contempt application, finding that the publication ban was not sufficiently clear due to a confusing warning issued in the family court proceedings.

The court also declined to grant declaratory relief, finding it would have no practical utility.

The court addressed submissions regarding the anonymization of its decision and the inclusion of a warning, in light of existing publication bans from underlying criminal and family court proceedings.

The Crown sought to protect victim identities through initialization and a substantial warning.

Post Media agreed to initials, while CBC opposed anonymization, citing the open court principle and lack of evidence for harm.

The court ultimately decided to initialize the principal parties in its decision and attach a modified warning to comply with publication bans while upholding the open court principle.

The Crown brought a motion to compel undertakings from "paper trail" affiants of the respondent media corporations during cross-examinations related to an upcoming civil contempt application.

The respondents argued that cross-examinations are narrower than discoveries, affiants are fact witnesses, and the requested inquiries were irrelevant or potentially incriminating.

The court found the questions regarding the authors' knowledge of publication bans and the CBC's system for tracking such bans to be relevant.

It ordered the affiants to make the requested inquiries, noting that the information appeared readily available and not unduly onerous to obtain.

The Minister of Transportation (MTO) applied for a warrant to remove trailer signage located within 400 meters of Highway 400, arguing it violated the Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and the MTO Corridor Signage Policy.

The respondents, including 2523654 Ontario Inc. (252), opposed the removal and brought a counter-application for a declaration that the signage was not prohibited.

The court found that the trailer signage constituted billboard signage not related to the property, thus contravening the Act and Policy.

The court also determined that legal opposition constituted "resistance or opposition" under the Act, justifying the warrant.

MTO's application was granted, and 252's counter-application was dismissed.

The paternal grandmother of a four-year-old child in child protection proceedings brought a motion seeking state-funded counsel pursuant to sections 7 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The child had been apprehended at birth following the death of an older sibling, and the Society sought to place the child in extended care with adoptive foster parents.

The grandmother sought to present an alternative plan for the child's placement with her.

The Court found that while the grandmother did not have standing to claim a remedy based on a breach of the child's own Charter right, the child's section 7 right to security of the person was engaged and would be infringed without state-funded counsel for the grandmother.

The Court ordered the Attorney General to provide state-funded counsel to the grandmother to ensure a fair hearing and to allow the Court to properly assess the child's best interests, considering the child's connections to kin and culture.

The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff and her expert witness to produce extensive financial and medical records, and additional expert materials, during cross-examinations for a class action certification motion.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding the requested information irrelevant and disproportionate to the certification issues under the Class Proceedings Act.

The court emphasized that a representative plaintiff's personal financial or medical circumstances are not generally relevant to certification, nor are an expert's draft notes or unrelated academic works that were not relied upon in their report.

The accused brought a Rowbotham application seeking state-funded counsel for his sexual assault trial.

The court found that while the accused was ineligible for Legal Aid and required counsel for complex pre-trial motions under ss. 276 and 278 of the Criminal Code, he failed to establish indigence.

The court noted the accused's high level of education and combined income with his common-law partner, concluding he could afford the estimated $3,000 fee for the pre-trial motions.

The application was denied.

The accused was convicted of several offences related to domestic violence after the complainant's recanted statements were admitted for their truth.

Prior to sentencing, the defence learned that the Crown had instructed police to remove a material witness warrant for the complainant from CPIC and failed to disclose that the complainant had been arrested and released.

The defence applied for a stay of proceedings for abuse of process and subpoenaed the trial Crown.

The court quashed the subpoena, finding the Crown's evidence was not strictly necessary.

The court found the Crown's conduct constituted an abuse of process by interfering with a judicial order and breaching disclosure obligations.

However, the court concluded a stay was not warranted and instead ordered a mistrial.

During pre-trial motions for a murder trial, the accused sought an order to have his leg shackles removed while in the courtroom.

The Crown opposed the request for security reasons, citing alleged gang affiliation, a prior incident in the cells, and staffing pressures.

The court found insufficient evidence that the accused posed a flight or safety risk to justify the continued use of shackles, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

The court ordered the shackles removed.

The offender pleaded guilty to the second-degree murder and dismemberment of his business partner following a dispute over a $1.3 million debt.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a sentence of life imprisonment with no parole eligibility for 14 years for the murder, and 5 years concurrent for the indignity to a human body.

The court accepted the joint submission, noting the horrific nature of the crime, the offender's lack of a prior record, and his guilty plea.

The offender pleaded guilty to second-degree murder for the domestic homicide of his wife.

The court considered the mandatory life sentence and had to determine the period of parole ineligibility under section 745.4 of the Criminal Code.

Accepting a joint submission from the Crown and defence, the court set the parole ineligibility period at 12 years, noting the brutal nature of the attack, the profound impact on the victim's family, and the offender's lack of a prior criminal record and early guilty plea.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm and personal liberty offenses.

The Crown's case for identification relied solely on grainy surveillance video footage.

The court, applying principles from R. v. Nikolovski, found that the video lacked sufficient clarity and quality to identify the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, especially considering the accused's changed appearance since the incident and the absence of corroborative evidence from a police search.

Consequently, the accused was found not guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with Over 80 and brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged infringement of section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (right to trial within a reasonable time).

The Crown had stayed an Impaired Driving charge.

The trial was scheduled for March 29, 2017, with the charge arising from August 16, 2015.

The court applied the post-Jordan framework for analyzing delay and found that while the net delay of 15 months and 1 week exceeded what would have been considered reasonable under the previous Morin framework, it fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court attributed approximately 4 months and 4 days to defence delay, primarily due to the defence's failure to conduct timely pre-trials despite having sufficient disclosure to proceed.

The motion was dismissed.