Jonathan Lall

The Ontario Court of Justice considered charges against Brian Cobb for breaching a release order by attending a place frequented by the complainant and for uttering a threat via email.

The Court analyzed the meaning of "frequented" in the context of a release order condition, rejecting an overly broad interpretation that would create impractical no-go zones.

The Court found no reasonable risk of contact at the church visit and acquitted Cobb on count 1.

On count 2, the Court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Cobb sent threatening emails, relying on circumstantial evidence linking the emails to Cobb’s prior meeting and statements.

Cobb was convicted of uttering a threat.

The Crown applied to designate the offender as a dangerous offender following a conviction for arson.

The offender has severe cognitive disabilities and a history of trauma, and sets fires as a coping mechanism.

The court found that the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation and imposed an indeterminate sentence.

However, the court also found that Correctional Service Canada (CSC) historically failed to provide the offender with appropriate, tailored mental health treatment, resulting in prolonged periods of segregation.

The court held that serving an indeterminate sentence in a penitentiary without meaningful treatment would extinguish any hope of rehabilitation and parole, constituting an anticipatory breach of the offender's rights against cruel and unusual punishment under s. 12 of the Charter.

As a remedy under s. 24(1) of the Charter, the court ordered CSC to transfer the offender to a provincial psychiatric hospital within 120 days and retained supervisory jurisdiction to monitor compliance.

This is a sentencing decision for Darrin Obermok, who pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The charges arose from a collision where Obermok ran a stop sign at high speed (105 km/h in a 60 km/h zone) with alcohol in his system, resulting in the death of a two-year-old child and severe injuries to the child's mother.

The Crown sought a 4-6 year jail sentence, while the defence requested an 18-24 month conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, emphasizing that a penitentiary term was necessary given the gravity of the offences and the offender's responsibility, particularly in light of the 2018 legislative amendments increasing maximum sentences for such crimes.

The presence of alcohol was deemed a significant aggravating factor.

Obermok was sentenced to five years imprisonment and a 15-year driving prohibition.

During a dangerous offender proceeding, the court appointed an amicus curiae to assist with constitutional issues relating to the anticipated conditions of the offender's incarceration.

The offender had extreme cognitive deficits and specialized needs, raising potential Charter issues under ss. 7, 12, and 15 if an indeterminate sentence were imposed.

The Crown opposed the appointment, but the court found it necessary because the application of the Charter to conditions of imprisonment is a specialized area of law outside the scope of traditional criminal practice, and defence counsel was not in a position to litigate these issues.

This is an application by Sophie Belleau for a stay of a one-year driving prohibition, imposed after her conviction for operating a motor vehicle with an alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg, pending her summary conviction appeal.

Belleau alleged she drove to flee an alleged sexual assault involving a "date rape drug." The court applied the three-part test for a stay: whether the appeal is frivolous, whether continuation of the prohibition would cause hardship, and whether granting the stay would detrimentally affect public confidence in the justice system.

The court found the appeal was not frivolous, that Belleau would suffer hardship (risk to employment as a social worker and impact on family life), and that she did not pose a danger to the public.

The application for a stay was granted with a condition of zero blood alcohol content while driving.

Erick Bercian, charged with first-degree murder, challenged the admissibility of a statement made to police before his arrest.

The court found that Bercian was psychologically detained when questioned by police, despite being told he was free to leave.

His Charter rights under ss. 10(a) and 10(b) were violated because he was not informed of the true reason for his detention (homicide investigation, as the victim had died) and was not given the opportunity to consult counsel based on the full extent of his jeopardy.

The police also used manipulative questioning tactics and effectively prevented him from leaving.

Consequently, the statement was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

The accused, a 19-year-old first offender, was convicted of break and enter, assault, assault with a weapon, possession of stolen property, and possession of break-in instruments following two incidents in one morning.

He broke into an occupied residential home and later broke into a pickup truck, where he was confronted by the owner and engaged in a physical struggle while brandishing a knife.

The court emphasized individual deterrence and rehabilitation for a youthful first offender but noted the seriousness of breaking into an occupied dwelling.

The accused was sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment and 18 months' probation.

The accused was charged with common assault, assault with a weapon, possession of stolen property, break and enter, and possession of break-in instruments following two incidents on the same morning.

The first incident involved a break and enter at a residence where property was stolen.

The second incident involved the accused breaking into a pickup truck, where he was confronted by the owner, leading to a physical altercation involving a knife.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as not credible, applied the doctrine of recent possession, and found the accused guilty on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, refusing to provide a breath sample, and resisting a peace officer.

The defence admitted the actus reus of all three offences but contested mens rea.

The accused consumed three glasses of wine while taking Champix (varenicline), a smoking cessation medication, resulting in pathological intoxication characterized by extreme impairment, aggression, and memory loss.

Expert evidence established that the combination of Champix and alcohol can produce exaggerated intoxication effects at low alcohol levels.

The accused was unaware of this drug-alcohol interaction and could not reasonably have known of it.

The court found the presumption of voluntary intoxication was rebutted and acquitted the accused on all charges.