Joshua White

The Crown brought an application to admit evidence of a separate shooting in Sioux Lookout as similar act evidence on the issues of identity and possession in the accused's trial for a shooting in Brampton.

The Crown acknowledged the similarities between the shootings were not particularly strong but argued evidence from the accused's arrest provided a necessary link.

The court dismissed the application, finding the two shootings did not share sufficiently striking similarities to render coincidence objectively improbable, and the linkage evidence could not overcome the lack of similarity between the acts themselves.

On a Crown application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code, the court considered whether multiple prosecution witnesses in an attempted murder prosecution should testify by video during blended pretrial motions and trial proceedings.

The court held that exceptional circumstances are not required and applied the statutory factors, including witness location, travel burden, personal circumstances, suitability of the remote site, fair trial rights, and the seriousness of the offence.

Remote testimony was authorized for Sioux Lookout witnesses and two forensic witnesses, given the substantial travel burdens, parental leave circumstances, and adequate technology at the proposed OPP detachment location.

The application was denied as to one officer transferred to Bracebridge because the Crown failed to establish a sufficient evidentiary foundation regarding the proposed location and technology, and that witness did not face comparable travel hardship.

The applicants appealed the municipality's refusal to approve Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments to permit a seasonal rural wedding and event venue on their property, located in a Prime Agricultural Area.

The Tribunal found that the proposed non-agricultural use was limited in scale, complied with minimum distance separation formulae, and maintained the general intent of the agricultural designation.

The Tribunal also accepted expert evidence that the site could accommodate appropriate on-site servicing and that the proposed parking standard was reasonable.

The appeals were allowed and the amendments were approved.

The applicant appealed the City of Toronto's failure to adopt a requested Official Plan Amendment to redevelop the Richard L. Hearn Generating Station into a mixed-use neighbourhood.

At a Case Management Conference, the Toronto Port Authority, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, GFL Environmental Inc., Amrize Canada Inc., and Portlands Energy Centre L.P. sought and were granted party status on consent.

A second Case Management Conference was scheduled to allow the parties to finalize a draft Procedural Order and issues list.

The applicant opposed the inclusion of certain Provincial Planning Statement and Vaughan Official Plan policies in the Issues List for a Phase 2 Hearing.

The Tribunal allowed the inclusion of policies related to child-care facilities, accessibility, interface compatibility, multi-modal transportation systems, and additional studies, finding they could be relevant to the interface design.

However, the Tribunal disallowed a policy regarding transitions in scale, noting that matters of transition regarding podium and tower heights were already endorsed in the Phase 1 decision and would not be re-litigated.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference to obtain status updates on the remaining appeals of the City of Toronto's comprehensive Zoning By-law No. 569-2013.

The Tribunal received updates on various issue-specific and site-specific appeals, noting ongoing settlement discussions.

The Tribunal directed all appellants to provide written updates to the City regarding their intentions to continue settlement discussions or provide an issues list, and scheduled a further Case Management Conference for June 2026.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter motion claiming unreasonable delay and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The applicant was charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm in relation to his ex-wife.

The total delay from the date of formal charges to the anticipated completion of trial was 1,179 days (approximately 38 months and 22 days).

The Crown failed to disclose critical evidence—video-recorded statements of the complainant and accused taken in Punjabi by police—and their translations for nearly two years.

The court found that the Crown's disclosure failures were unexplained and constituted a serious breach of its disclosure obligations.

After deducting legitimate defence delay periods, the net delay was 949 days (31.2 months), exceeding the 30-month presumptive ceiling for Superior Court trials.

The Crown did not establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings.

The accused was convicted of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm with accessible ammunition, careless storage of a firearm, possession of a prohibited device and ammunition without a licence, and disobeying a lawful court order prohibiting weapon possession.

The court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment on the firearm-related offences (served concurrently) and six months imprisonment on the breach of court order (served consecutively), for a total of three years and six months, less 574 days of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a remaining custodial term of one year, eleven months, and eight days.

The court found that the accused transported the loaded firearm across provincial borders in a motor vehicle and possessed it in public places, constituting aggravating factors.

The court emphasized the serious and escalating problem of illegal firearm possession in Peel Region and the paramount importance of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for such offences.

The accused was charged with possession of a loaded, prohibited firearm and a prohibited device (over-capacity magazine) found in a blue duffel bag in the kitchen of his residence during the execution of a search warrant.

The Crown's case relied on surveillance evidence showing the accused carrying the bag, his driver's licence found in the bag, and the continuity of the bag from surveillance observations to its discovery.

The defence argued the firearm was planted by a third party resident.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting the planting theory as speculative and unsupported, and finding the accused had both actual and constructive possession of the firearm and prohibited items.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, breach of release order, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The Crown sought 15 months custody plus probation.

The defence argued for time served based on harsh pretrial custody conditions, extensive restrictive bail conditions, and the accused's rehabilitative potential.

The court sentenced the accused to 15 months custody but credited 104 days of Summers credit, 40 days for harsh institutional conditions (Duncan credit), and 454 days for restrictive bail conditions (Downes credit), totalling approximately 20 months of credit, resulting in a sentence of time already served.

The accused was placed on two years probation with conditions including non-contact with victims, weapons prohibition, and mandatory counselling for anger management and substance abuse.

The applicant appealed the City of Vaughan's failure to adopt an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a high-rise, mixed-use residential development comprising four towers and 2,339 apartment units.

The City argued that existing transportation and infrastructure constraints required a cap on population and a reduction in the scale of development.

The Tribunal found that the proposed development, located within a Protected Major Transit Station Area, would optimize the use of existing infrastructure and support transit and active transportation.

The Tribunal approved the amendments in principle, subject to Holding provisions to ensure transportation and servicing capacity at the time of construction, and directed a Phase 2 hearing to determine the final form of the amendments.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the City of Brampton's Official Plan Amendments concerning Major Transit Station Areas.

The City requested that potential settlements be addressed via written hearings once council instructions are received, and that a party status request by Brampton Plan be deferred.

The Tribunal agreed, deferring the party status request and scheduling a further Case Management Conference for October 2025.

The Tribunal convened a status update regarding appeals against the municipality's failure to make decisions on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment applications for a mixed-use redevelopment.

The parties reported that Tribunal-led mediation resulted in a resolution in principle, but further discussions and municipal council authorization are required.

The Tribunal directed the parties to provide a written status update by December 1, 2025, rather than scheduling a further Case Management Conference at this time.

The court found S.P. guilty of one count of sexual interference, accepting the complainant's evidence and the accused's own admissions in text messages as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable doubt as to a second alleged incident, citing inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and corroborating evidence from other witnesses and the Agreed Statement of Facts.

The decision provides a detailed analysis of the law on credibility, reasonable doubt, motive, and the assessment of child witness evidence in sexual offence cases.

The court sentenced Renzo Gomez for dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm, following his guilty plea.

The facts established that Mr. Gomez drove at excessive speed, under the influence of alcohol, and with a history of prior driving offences, resulting in a fatal collision and serious injuries.

The court reviewed the impact on the victims and their families, the offender’s personal circumstances, and the applicable legal framework.

After considering aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence of 6 years for causing death (with a 16-year driving prohibition) and 4 years for causing bodily harm (with a 14-year prohibition), to be served concurrently, along with a DNA order.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a first Case Management Conference regarding appeals of the Town of Aurora Official Plan, 2024.

The Tribunal granted party status to Allaura Limited Partnership, 16 20 22 Allaura Blvd Inc., and Macont Developments Inc. on consent.

The parties indicated an interest in Tribunal-led mediation, and the Appellants agreed to provide a draft issues list to the Town to facilitate instructions from Town Council.

A second Case Management Conference was not scheduled pending the outcome of mediation efforts.

The appellant appealed the City of Toronto's refusal of Official Plan and Zoning By-Law Amendments to permit a mixed-use development at 1366 Yonge Street.

Following mediation, the parties reached a settlement for a revised 49-storey building.

Participants objected to the loss of existing medical office uses.

The Tribunal accepted uncontested expert planning evidence that the revised proposal, which includes live-work units and a right of first return for a medical lab, represents good planning, is consistent with provincial policies, and conforms to the Official Plan.

The appeals were allowed in part on an interim basis, with final approval withheld pending satisfaction of conditions.

This was the first Case Management Conference regarding multiple appeals of the Region of Peel's approval of Official Plan Amendments 142, 143, and 144 to the City of Mississauga's Official Plan, which relate to Major Transit Station Areas.

The Tribunal granted Observing Party status to the Region of Peel, Non-Appellant Party status to Hensall Holdings and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and Participant status to Trillium Health Partners.

A motion by the City to confirm the scope of the appeals and bring unappealed portions of the OPAs into effect was adjourned to allow the parties time to review a revised draft order and compendium.

This criminal trial concerned charges of impaired driving causing death and bodily harm against Renzo Gomez, who had already pleaded guilty to dangerous driving.

The central issue was whether the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol.

Despite a high-speed collision, the smell of alcohol on the accused's breath, and a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) range of 53-105 mg/100ml, the court found reasonable doubt.

This was primarily due to expert evidence highlighting inter-individual variability in the effects of alcohol and the consistent testimony of three witnesses (a police officer and two paramedics) who observed no signs of impairment in the accused.

The court emphasized that a high BAC alone, especially below 100 mg/100ml, does not automatically prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt for criminal prosecution, and that such a threshold is a matter for Parliament.

The accused was acquitted of the impaired driving charges.

The applicants appealed the City of Mississauga's failure to make decisions on applications for an Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment.

At a Case Management Conference, the parties advised that an agreement had been reached regarding access to a neighbouring property for technical work, resolving the need for previously scheduled motions.

The Tribunal released the motion dates, confirmed the withdrawal of a party, and ordered the appeals held in abeyance pending a status update or Notice of Readiness.