J. McGrath

The applicant, J.R., charged with serious firearms and drug offences, sought a bail review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being detained for over 90 days.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the passage of time.

The court found no substantial likelihood of the applicant committing further offences given the proposed electronic monitoring and sureties.

On the tertiary ground, the court emphasized the public health implications of incarceration during the pandemic, relying on expert evidence, and noted the Crown's unreasonable delay in disclosure.

The court concluded that continued detention was not justified and ordered the applicant's release on strict conditions.

The accused brought a third-party records application under the O'Connor regime seeking production of medical records and clinical notes from the complainant's psychiatrist relating to her mental health treatment.

The accused argued the records were necessary to establish that the complainant suffered from psychotic episodes that could affect her credibility and reliability as a witness.

The court dismissed the application at the first stage, finding the accused failed to establish "likely relevance" and that the application relied on speculative, discriminatory, and stereotypical reasoning linking mental illness to testimonial unreliability without case-specific evidence.

The defendant was charged with sixteen counts under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (OSPCAA) relating to animal welfare violations at his property.

The charges involved a long-horned bull, six ducks, twenty chickens, and one domestic dog.

The prosecution presented evidence of inadequate shelter, food, water, sanitary conditions, and medical attention.

The defendant presented no evidence and was self-represented.

The court found the defendant guilty on all sixteen counts after a trial spanning multiple dates over more than one year.

The court also dismissed numerous defence motions, including applications to stay proceedings based on medical condition, Charter violations, and requests for animal return.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

He was found passed out in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle with the key in the ignition.

The accused conceded impairment but argued he was not in care or control of the vehicle because he had arranged for a friend to pick him up.

The court found that while the accused may have initially intended not to drive, his high level of intoxication, confused state, weak explanations for his conduct, and demonstrated willingness to manipulate the gear shift when police arrived established a realistic risk he would change his mind and operate the vehicle.

The court convicted the accused.