Jonathan Bliss

This application, brought by His Majesty the King in Right of Ontario, sought an order extending various time limits under the Provincial Offences Act due to a disruption in postal services across Ontario.

The court found that identifying individual respondents was not possible and that it was not unjust to hear the application without notice.

The order extended specific time limits for proceedings and appeals under the Provincial Offences Act, as well as the due dates for fines, to account for the postal disruption, aiming to prevent prejudice to both respondents and municipalities.

L.M. pleaded guilty to child pornography offences.

The Crown sought reconsideration of a previous ruling that these offences did not constitute "serious personal injury offences" (SPIOs), which is a prerequisite for a dangerous offender designation.

The Crown's request for reconsideration was based on the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Snowden.

The court, after clarifying its previous reasoning and considering new evidence and the Snowden decision, reaffirmed its original finding that L.M.'s offences, while connected to harm, do not meet the threshold for SPIOs, thus precluding a dangerous offender designation.

The accused, L.M., pleaded guilty to child pornography offences.

The Crown sought to prove an unproven historical allegation of sexual assault involving M.L., the daughter of L.M.'s then-partner, as an aggravating fact for a potential long-term offender designation.

The court heard testimony from M.L. and her mother, N.L., and considered the challenges of assessing an adult's testimony about childhood events, including inconsistencies over time.

Applying principles from R. v. W.(R.) and R. v. A.M., the court found M.L. to be a credible and reliable witness, concluding that the sexual assault allegation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite minor inconsistencies attributed to the passage of time and the victim's age at the time of the incident.

This is a sentencing decision for Jonathan Wong, who pleaded guilty to three counts of voyeurism under s. 162.1(a) of the Criminal Code.

His conduct involved surreptitiously recording 174 unidentified persons, 7 identified victims, and one victim during sexual activity, over a period of 20 years (2001-2021).

The collection of voyeuristic files was described as the largest in Canadian history.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment for the general voyeurism counts and a consecutive 3 months for the sexual activity recording.

The defence sought a conditional sentence or 12 months imprisonment.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, finding that a conditional sentence would be inadequate given the gravity, duration, and volume of the offences, and the significant impact on victims.

The judge imposed a total sentence of 18 months imprisonment, with the 3-month sentence for the sexual activity recording to be served concurrently, followed by 18 months probation.

L.M. pleaded guilty to possessing, accessing, and distributing child pornography.

The Crown applied for an assessment to determine if L.M. should be declared a dangerous offender or a long-term offender.

The court dismissed the application for a dangerous offender assessment, finding no sufficient causal link between L.M.'s conduct and severe psychological damage to victims to classify the offences as "serious personal injury offences" (SPIO) under s.752 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court granted the application for an assessment to determine if L.M. might be a long-term offender under s.753.1, given his criminal history and risk of reoffending.

The Crown sought to admit four statements from a deceased witness (J.T.) at a preliminary hearing under s. 540(7) of the Criminal Code.

The court applied the "prima facie air of reliability" test to determine admissibility.

It found the portions of J.T.'s statements related to the kidnapping credible and trustworthy due to corroborating evidence, despite procedural deficiencies in statement-taking.

However, the portions related to drug possession and the identification of "Z" were deemed unreliable and were excised, as J.T.'s account was inconsistent and self-serving regarding her involvement with drugs.

The court affirmed its power to excise unreliable portions of a statement.

Craig Harris-Lowe applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The court analyzed the total delay from charge to anticipated trial conclusion, deducting periods attributable to defence conduct and exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 pandemic).

The court found significant defence-caused delays, including repeated failures to schedule resolution meetings and attend court.

Despite the total delay exceeding the presumptive ceiling, the net delay, after deductions, fell below it.

The application for a stay was denied as the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful, sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The accused, who suffers from schizophrenia, attacked a co-worker without provocation, striking her repeatedly with a metal brake part.

He was charged with attempted murder.

The matter was converted to a trial on consent, and a finding of guilt was made.

A hearing was then held to determine whether the accused was not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's framework in Oommen, the court found that the accused's active psychosis deprived him of the capacity for rational perception and rational choice about the moral wrongfulness of his actions.

The accused was found not criminally responsible.

The accused pled guilty to manslaughter after providing a substance he believed to be cocaine to the victim, who died from ingesting U-47700, a synthetic opioid.

The accused, along with another individual, also ingested the substance and survived.

The accused failed to call emergency services when the victim was found unresponsive, instead calling for a ride.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by three years' probation, with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions.

The sentence balanced denunciation and deterrence against the accused's genuine remorse, lack of criminal record, and the fact that he believed he was supplying cocaine rather than a deadly synthetic opioid.

The Crown charged three defendants with various offences arising from a police stop of a vehicle in downtown Barrie.

The defendants challenged the lawfulness of the police conduct, alleging violations of their Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The Crown conceded that Charter violations occurred.

The court found that the passengers (Hamidu and Farah) were arbitrarily detained without being advised of their right to counsel, and that evidence obtained from this unlawful detention should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The driver (Husen) was subject to a brief detention in furtherance of a valid Highway Traffic Act investigation, and the firearm evidence was admitted against him.

The charges against Hamidu and Farah were dismissed; Husen faced trial on firearm-related charges.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample after police responded to a noise complaint at her residence.

The accused was found sitting in the driver's seat of a van in her driveway with the keys in the ignition and beer cans in the centre console.

The trial judge found that while the accused was in the driver's seat and had consumed alcohol, the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that she was impaired or that there was a realistic risk of danger.

The judge also found that the breath demand was not made in unequivocal terms and therefore did not constitute a valid demand.

The accused was acquitted on both charges.

The defendant pleaded guilty to child luring and possession of child pornography.

He communicated with an 11-year-old girl over online gaming platforms, progressively escalating to sexually explicit messages and images over a nine-day period.

He also possessed child pornography on his computer.

The defendant has significant cognitive and developmental delays, a history of sexually inappropriate behaviour since age 8, and was on waitlists for treatment programs.

The Crown sought the mandatory minimum sentences; the defence challenged the mandatory minimum for child luring as a violation of section 12 of the Charter.

The court found the mandatory minimum grossly disproportionate for a reasonable hypothetical offender with developmental delays and struck it down.

However, the court imposed a custodial sentence despite the defendant's cognitive challenges, finding that a conditional sentence was inappropriate due to the high risk of reoffending and the defendant's demonstrated grooming behaviour.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a single motor vehicle accident.

The accused challenged the grounds for her arrest under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on her observable signs of impairment at the roadside, including unsteadiness, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and incoherent responses.

The court also found that a formal breath demand was made at the detachment, and the accused's refusal to comply constituted the offence of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

A former teacher pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting two students in the 1980s.

The offences involved repeated sexual touching over a two-year period during school trips and at the offender's home.

The victims disclosed the abuse 31 years later.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence followed by one year probation, rejecting the defence submission for a conditional sentence.

The court found that despite the offender's age, guilty plea, and lack of reoffending over 34 years, the gross breach of trust, multiple victims, and episodic nature of the offending required a denunciatory and deterrent custodial sentence.

The accused was charged with possession of fentanyl contrary to s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

She had submitted counterfeit fentanyl patches to a pharmacy on three occasions to obtain legitimate fentanyl patches to which she was not entitled, as part of her abuse of the medication.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of four to six months; the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation, finding that while a discharge was not appropriate given the sophistication of the offending and the opioid crisis, a custodial sentence was unnecessary given the accused's significant rehabilitative efforts post-arrest.

The accused pleaded guilty to conspiracy to import fentanyl and its derivatives, possession of MDEA for the purpose of trafficking, and breach of probation.

The court found that the accused, aged 20 at the time of the offences, had imported fentanyl and other drugs from a Chinese mail order website and distributed them locally, contributing directly to five fentanyl overdoses in October 2016.

Despite his difficult childhood marked by parental drug addiction and death, and his current rehabilitative efforts, the court imposed a sentence of 7 years and 6 months imprisonment, emphasizing the serious nature of fentanyl trafficking and the need for general deterrence and denunciation in the context of the opioid crisis.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following a complaint of erratic driving.

The accused brought Charter applications seeking to exclude breath readings and stay proceedings, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that police lawfully entered the driveway under an implied licence, had reasonable grounds to make the approved screening device demand, and did not violate the accused's right to counsel of choice.

However, the court found a serious breach of section 10(b) when portions of the accused's privileged communications with duty counsel were inadvertently recorded by police audio equipment.

The breath readings were excluded pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with breaching a restraining order under section 127 of the Criminal Code by communicating indirectly with the protected person through a third party.

The accused sent text messages to an intermediary stating "you should tell Beverly that I pose no threat to her" in the context of arranging access to his children.

The court found that while the communication technically violated the order, the de minimis principle applied, as the conduct was so trivial and trifling as to raise no abiding concern to public or community interest.

The charge was dismissed.

Criminal trial involving charges of assault and uttering threats against two defendants arising from allegations of child abuse occurring between November 1 and December 23, 2016.

The prosecution relied primarily on testimony from two teenage witnesses, one of whom was a close friend of the family.

The court found credibility issues with the witnesses' evidence, particularly regarding exaggeration and inconsistencies.

The defendants were charged with failing to provide necessaries of life, assault, and uttering threats.

The fail to provide necessaries charges were dismissed on application for directed verdict.

The court found the defendants guilty of two assault charges but acquitted them of the remaining charges.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by a drug and breach of probation.

The accused was found sitting in his mother's vehicle in a farmer's field in the early morning hours.

Police observed dilated pupils, peculiar clothing, drug paraphernalia, and suspected drugs in the vehicle.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's physical presentation, dilated pupils, and items found in the vehicle to establish impairment.

The defence argued that the evidence amounted only to possibilities without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found that while the accused's presentation was peculiar and possibly consistent with drug impairment, the absence of field sobriety testing, drug recognition expert evaluation, and chemical analysis of suspected substances, combined with limited evidence of actual incoordination, fell short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.