J. Mathurin

The defendants, an individual and a corporation, pleaded guilty to contravening a Section 7 Order under the Reopening Ontario (A Flexible Response to COVID-19) Act, 2020.

The prosecution sought a fine against the corporation and a suspended sentence with a probation order against the individual.

The self-represented individual expressed confusion about the probation order.

The court rejected the joint submission regarding the probation order, finding it unduly oppressive and that the agreement was not a true joint submission due to the power imbalance with a self-represented defendant.

The court imposed a lower fine against the corporation and a suspended sentence with no probation order against the individual, emphasizing proportionality, parity, and the low risk of harm in the offence.

M.K. sought a review of a detention order for criminal harassment and breach of recognizance, arguing the Justice of the Peace failed to adequately consider her mental illness and the necessity of treatment.

The court found no error in law or inappropriate decision by the Justice of the Peace, noting the existing supervisory and treatment plan was ineffective given M.K.'s repeated breaches and unwillingness to accept treatment.

The court dismissed the application for review, stating that M.K.'s continued detention was necessary on secondary grounds for public protection, but indicated willingness to reconsider if a more structured and effective treatment plan addressing the raised concerns was presented.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The central issue was whether evidence of a failed approved screening device test, without evidence of device calibration, was sufficient to justify an arrest.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest based on the failed screening device result, even absent explicit testimony regarding calibration.

The court distinguished between cases where the device's functioning was "on the table" due to contradictory evidence and cases where the evidence was silent on the issue.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused, a Michigan resident, was arrested for operating a motor vehicle with excess alcohol in his blood.

He was held for a bail hearing based on a police practice of holding all non-residents, despite having no reasonable grounds to believe he would fail to attend court.

The court found violations of his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

While declining to grant a stay of proceedings, the court excluded the breath test evidence as the appropriate remedy, resulting in dismissal of the charge.

The accused brought a Charter application under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code.

The accused alleged that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated due to institutional delay of 449 days (approximately 15 months) between the information being sworn and the scheduled trial date.

The court found that the delay exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8 to 10 months and that the accused had suffered actual prejudice including stress from the adjourned trial date, employer oversight of criminal proceedings, restrictions on access to his daughter, and increased legal fees.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment contrary to section 264(2)(b) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with the complainant on or about March 29, 2013 and June 26, 2013, causing her to reasonably fear for her safety.

The complainant also sought a peace bond under section 810 of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the accused's conduct was improper and spiteful, the Crown failed to prove the criminal harassment charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court found on a balance of probabilities that the complainant had reasonable grounds to fear personal injury and ordered the accused to enter into a recognizance for 12 months with conditions including no contact with the complainant and a requirement to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood on January 1, 2013.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable and within the two-hour statutory limit.

The court found significant unexplained delays between when the accused was ready to provide samples and when the samples were actually administered, particularly a delay of approximately 51 minutes and 54 seconds before the first test and 1 hour, 14 minutes, and 11 seconds before the second test.

The Crown failed to provide adequate evidence explaining these delays, and the court found the Crown had not discharged its burden of proof.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control and over 80 care or control after being found asleep in his vehicle with the engine running in a parking lot.

The defendant claimed he had no intention to drive because he had called a friend to pick him up and fell asleep while waiting.

The Crown relied on the statutory presumption under s. 258(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the defendant's evidence regarding his plan was not credible and that he failed to rebut the presumption on a balance of probabilities.

Even if the presumption had been rebutted, the court found the Crown proved actual care or control beyond a reasonable doubt based on the realistic risk the defendant could change his mind and drive while impaired.