L. Eplett

The accused was charged with Threaten Death, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, Disobey Court Order, and Criminal Harassment.

The accused, an estranged partner of the complainant, allegedly sought to punish the complainant for limiting his access to their children through threats and intimidation in Family Court proceedings, distribution of intimate photographs at the complainant's workplace, and coercion to change testimony regarding custody.

The court found the accused guilty of Utter Death Threat, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, and Criminal Harassment.

The charge of Disobey Court Order was dismissed.

The court found the accused's aggressive and controlling behaviour during Family Court proceedings corroborated the complainant's testimony regarding threats and intimidation.

The accused was charged with Threaten Death, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, Disobey Court Order, and Criminal Harassment.

The charges arose from allegations that the accused pressured his estranged spouse over custody and access to their two young children.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct from 2012, including the dissemination of nude photographs of the complainant at her workplace.

The court admitted evidence of the 2012 schoolyard incident as prior discreditable conduct, finding it strikingly similar in detail and highly probative of motive and identity, while excluding other earlier misconduct as insufficiently distinctive.

A First Nations woman pleaded guilty to multiple drinking and driving offences and related charges.

The court found that Ontario's failure to proclaim the curative discharge provision violated the equality rights of Indigenous offenders under the Charter.

The court applied a remedial approach under s. 24(1) of the Charter and granted curative discharges on the impaired driving counts, finding that intensive culturally-based treatment through an accredited NNADAP facility was in the public interest.

The decision emphasizes the intergenerational trauma stemming from residential schools and the need for a realistic, progressive approach to assessing treatment success for Indigenous offenders.

The accused was charged with Operation Impaired and Over 80 following a traffic stop where he registered a fail on a roadside screening device (ASD).

The defence challenged the reliability of the ASD result, arguing that without evidence of calibration, the officer lacked an objectively reasonable belief that the device was in proper working order, thereby undermining the basis for arrest and the subsequent breath demand.

The court found that the officer's reliance on a self-test met the low threshold for establishing an objectively reasonable belief in the device's working order.

The Crown proved the essential elements of the Over 80 charge, resulting in a conviction.

The Operation Impaired charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence of impairment.

The applicant, an Aboriginal woman from the Mississauga First Nation, entered guilty pleas to drinking and driving offences and sought a curative discharge as a remedy for alleged Charter violations.

She argued that Ontario's failure to proclaim section 255(5) of the Criminal Code—which permits curative discharges for impaired driving offences—violated her equality rights under section 15 of the Charter.

The court found that the provincial policy created differential treatment of Aboriginal offenders by denying them access to restorative sentencing options mandated by section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

The court held that the non-proclamation constituted systemic discrimination against Indigenous persons and violated their equality rights, which were not saved by section 1 of the Charter.

The court granted a remedy permitting consideration of a curative discharge.

The accused was charged with care or control of a vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

Police responded to a report of a pickup truck that had run a red light and found the accused slumped over the steering wheel in the middle of an intersection with the engine running and transmission in drive.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and that breath tests were taken as soon as practicable.

The accused was acquitted of the impaired charge due to the breath technician's opinion that ability was not impaired, but convicted of the over 80 charge based on breath readings of 158 and 155 milligrams.

The respondent, an Aboriginal person, entered guilty pleas to Operation Impaired and Refuse Breath Sample.

She challenged the Crown's request for a bifurcated sentencing process, arguing that Ontario's failure to proclaim the curative discharge provision in the Criminal Code discriminates against Aboriginal persons and violates their Charter equality rights.

The Crown sought to first determine an appropriate sentence before addressing the constitutional question.

The court rejected the bifurcated approach, finding that a full sentencing analysis considering Aboriginal circumstances and the Charter challenge must proceed together to ensure fairness and a complete record for appeal.