Joseph F. Kenkel

The accused was charged with mischief to property of a value less than $5,000 contrary to s. 430(4) of the Criminal Code.

The accused attended a lawyer's office to retrieve a file belonging to his father.

A dispute arose regarding the retrieval of the file, during which the accused pushed the lawyer, causing the lawyer to fall into a sideboard and break a porcelain horse figurine.

The accused claimed the lawyer broke the figurine by hitting him with it.

The court found the lawyer's testimony credible and the accused's testimony inconsistent and incredible.

The court convicted the accused, finding that while the damage was not intentional, the accused was reckless as to the consequences of pushing the lawyer in an area containing fragile items.

The accused was charged with 15 offences arising from an incident on February 5, 2018, where he allegedly confronted his former spouse at her home with a loaded sawed-off shotgun, threatened to kill her and two men, and forcibly confined her.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the credible testimony of the complainant, corroborated by independent witness evidence, forensic firearms analysis, and circumstantial evidence including a shotgun shell recovered from the scene.

The accused's defence was that he possessed only a pellet gun and had no knowledge of the shotgun or ammunition.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and the accused's testimony to be illogical, internally inconsistent, and contradicted by external evidence.

The court convicted on all counts.

The accused was charged with threatening to cause bodily harm contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code.

After multiple adjournments, the accused's counsel advised on September 21, 2018 that the accused was willing to enter into a s. 810 peace bond recognizance, and the Crown agreed to withdraw the charge upon execution.

However, when the matter returned to court, the accused refused to sign the recognizance, claiming he had never agreed to do so and his counsel lacked instructions.

The court was asked to determine the appropriate remedy for the accused's refusal to sign.

The Crown applied to adduce evidence of past threats made by the accused against a former boyfriend of the complainant.

The defence conceded some relevance but argued the details were dated and disputed, potentially diverting the trial from central issues.

The court found the evidence directly relevant to the complainant's credibility and the accused's animus, which were central issues at trial.

The court determined the probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect and, noting the judge-alone trial format, allowed the Crown to proceed with the evidence.

The accused, a Muay Thai boxing coach, was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual interference under section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The allegations arose from an incident on a return flight from training in Thailand, where the complainant, a 14-year-old student, alleged that the accused touched her buttocks while she was sleeping on his lap.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed to have been asleep.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness and rejected the accused's testimony as not credible.

The court also found a pattern of boundary violations by the accused in his relationship with the complainant, including inappropriate physical contact and intimate gestures.

The Crown proved both offences beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant brought two applications to re-open trial proceedings following conviction.

The first application sought to challenge the admissibility of text messages on the basis that they were intercepted without authorization under Part VI of the Criminal Code.

This argument had been rejected by multiple appellate courts and trial courts.

The second application sought to re-open the entrapment hearing based on newly disclosed production order data showing the volume of responses to undercover police advertisements.

The court found that neither application met the legal test for re-opening and dismissed both applications.

This is a second section 11(b) Charter application challenging delay in criminal proceedings.

The defendant was charged with three offences arising from a focused fact situation.

Following conviction at trial in June 2017, numerous post-verdict applications were brought, including entrapment, Kienapple, and constitutional challenges.

The court found that while the overall timeline extended from March 2016 to August 2018, the case moved expeditiously at every stage, with all parties taking active steps to minimize delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding no breach of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine (crack) involving a small amount.

The Crown sought a sentence in the 6-12 month range, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 24 months probation, including conditions for counselling, assessment for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder, and 40 hours of community service.

The court considered the defendant's vulnerable circumstances, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, and extensive Gladue report detailing her Indigenous heritage and personal history of trauma and marginalization.

The accused was charged with "Over 80" following a roadside stop for speeding.

The Crown relied on breath test evidence obtained through an Approved Screening Device test and approved instrument tests.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the breath test evidence on Charter grounds, alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b).

The court found a serious breach of section 10(b) Charter rights, specifically regarding the accused's right to counsel in a language he understood.

Despite the Crown's arguments that the officer made reasonable efforts, the court found the police failed to take adequate steps to facilitate access to legal advice in Persian, the accused's first language.

The court excluded the breath test evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

The applicant sought to vary or terminate a probation order imposed following his conviction for uttering a threat to cause bodily harm to a Child and Family Services worker.

The probation order contained numerous terms directed towards public safety and rehabilitation through counselling.

The applicant's application provided no reasonable basis for variation or termination, particularly given alleged non-compliance with the order from November 20, 2017 to March 29, 2018.

The Crown did not consent to the application.

The court dismissed the application, noting that personal inconvenience or unwillingness to remain on probation cannot justify modification of the order.

The accused was convicted at trial of Impaired Operation Causing Bodily Harm and Dangerous Operation Causing Bodily Harm following a high-speed crash that resulted in life-threatening injuries to a front-seat passenger and serious injuries to another passenger.

The court rejected the defence argument that the Kienapple rule precluded multiple convictions, finding the offences distinct as they address different aspects of road safety.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence for dangerous driving (with 12 months concurrent for impaired driving), followed by 18 months probation, a 3-year driving prohibition, and a DNA order.

The court balanced significant aggravating factors including the extreme speed, severity of injuries, and the accused's recent warning about drinking and driving against mitigating factors including his youth, good character, and low blood alcohol level.

The accused was convicted of multiple offences arising from two separate incidents involving domestic violence.

In Hamilton, the accused held a knife toward his pregnant girlfriend, threatening to kill her and their unborn child, and assaulted a pregnant witness.

In Aurora, the accused spat in the face of his ex-girlfriend, threatened to kill her, and damaged her vehicle.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 180 days with credit for pre-trial custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in 6 days to be served, followed by 2 years of probation with strict conditions including anger management and PARS counselling, a 10-year firearms prohibition, and DNA registration.

The accused was charged with impaired operation contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failing to comply with an approved instrument demand contrary to section 254(5).

The Crown relied on evidence of erratic driving observed by an independent witness over a 10-minute period, including lane weaving, failure to respond to traffic lights, and excessive speed.

The accused provided one breath sample showing 142 mgs of alcohol but failed to provide a suitable second sample after approximately nine attempts.

The court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt based on the credible driving evidence and the accused's deliberate failure to provide the second sample.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference arising from an alleged touching of a person under 16 years of age that occurred on an international flight from South Korea to Toronto.

The defence applied to quash the Information for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that because the flight terminated in Peel Region, the charges should have been laid there and heard in Brampton rather than Newmarket.

The court dismissed the application, finding that section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code deems offences committed aboard aircraft terminating in Canada to have been committed in Canada, permitting prosecution in any territorial division.

The court further found that Newmarket was the most convenient forum given that the investigation was conducted by York Regional Police, the complainant and key witnesses resided in York Region, and the accused lived in North York.

The Crown applied for forfeiture of firearms seized on consent from the respondent and for a prohibition order preventing the respondent from possessing firearms for five years under section 117.05 of the Criminal Code.

The respondent surrendered his firearms following a mental health crisis triggered by public exposure of false claims about his military service.

While the respondent had no criminal record and acted responsibly by admitting himself to hospital, the court found that his ongoing psychiatric concerns and significant physical impairments—including tremors and loss of motor control in his hands and arms—rendered him unsafe to possess or operate firearms.

The court granted the forfeiture and prohibition orders, but provided a six-month period for the respondent to sell the firearms to a licensed purchaser before they would be destroyed.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL of blood (Over 80).

The Crown proved the reliability of breath test readings and the elements of the Over 80 offence.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the traffic stop, arrest, searches, and right to counsel advice under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found the initial traffic stop was lawful under the Highway Traffic Act based on the officer's observation of an unusual noise from the vehicle, its identification as a BMW with front-end damage, and the recent hit-and-run incident involving a similar vehicle in the area.

The arrest for driving while suspended was lawful and not arbitrary.

Searches incident to arrest were properly limited and authorized by law.

While minor breaches of section 10(b) rights occurred, they did not warrant exclusion of the breath test evidence.

The court found the accused guilty.

The accused was charged with eight offences arising from a troubled seven-year on-and-off relationship with the complainant, with whom he had two children.

The charges included assault with a weapon, threatening to cause death, break and enter, sexual assault, and mischief occurring in Hamilton (2012), Richmond Hill (January 2017), and Aurora (February 2017).

The central issue was credibility.

The court found the accused was not a credible witness, with his evidence contradicted by credible external evidence and the testimony of a corroborating witness.

The complainant and corroborating witness were found to be credible and reliable on most counts.

The accused was convicted on six counts but acquitted on the break and enter and sexual assault charges due to reasonable doubt regarding the reliability of the complainant's evidence on those specific allegations.

A young person applied for early termination of probation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The applicant had been sentenced to three months custody and supervision followed by two years probation for aggravated assault, obstructing police, personation, possession of a weapon dangerous to the public peace, and two counts of failing to comply with a youth sentence.

After serving approximately one year and one month of the sentence with full compliance, positive behavioral changes, and employment, the court granted early termination of the probation order, finding that the applicant's progress constituted a material change in circumstances warranting termination under section 59(2) of the Act.

The accused was convicted of Sexual Assault, Forcible Confinement, Assault, and Assault Resisting Arrest.

The offences involved forced anal intercourse with the accused's former girlfriend while she was bound and confined, followed by choking and violent resistance to police arrest.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less one day with three years' probation to follow, along with mandatory ancillary orders including firearms prohibition, DNA orders, and SOIRA registration.

The accused was charged with two counts of child luring contrary to section 172.1(2), one count of communication for the purpose of obtaining sexual services from a person under 18 years under section 286.1(2), and two counts of arranging a sexual offence with a child via telecommunication under section 172.2(2).

The Crown's case was based on an undercover investigation (Project Raphael) where an officer posed as a minor and engaged in text conversations with the accused.

The sole issue at trial was identification: whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the person who engaged in the text conversation with the officer, given that the phone used to send the messages was never recovered.

The court found that circumstantial evidence, including cellphone tower records, the timing and content of messages, and the circumstances of the accused's arrest, proved identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on all five counts.