Mellington Godoy

The accused, a single mother, was charged with three counts of attempted murder and one count of uttering a threat to cause death after choking and smothering her three children.

The accused admitted to the acts and to endangering their lives, but argued she lacked the specific intent to kill due to advanced intoxication and a blackout.

The court found that while the accused was not in a state of advanced intoxication, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to kill her children, as she stopped the assault herself, instructed her child to call 911, and expressed a desire to protect them from herself.

The accused was found not guilty of attempted murder but guilty of the lesser included offences of aggravated assault and uttering threats.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the children were in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The respondent mother and maternal grandmother opposed the motion, with the grandmother seeking a supervision order to herself.

The court found that despite the grandmother's past violations of safety plans, her recent steps in counselling and the mother's relocation to another city created a genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to protect the children.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed and a trial was ordered.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault by choking, aggravated assault, and breach of probation arising from a prolonged episode of intimate partner violence, but contested unlawful confinement and uttering a death threat.

After assessing the complainant’s credibility and reliability, the court found her core account of repeated cyclical assaults, restraint inside the apartment, and two episodes of choking to be credible and materially corroborated by the physical scene and injuries.

The court held that the Crown proved unlawful confinement beyond a reasonable doubt because the complainant was prevented from leaving by force, intimidation, and surveillance.

The court acquitted on the uttering-threat count, finding the accused’s statements expressed indifference to the complainant’s suffering rather than an objectively ascertainable threat to kill.

On the Gardiner hearing, the court also found the disputed aggravating facts proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Review Board held a restriction of liberties hearing for an accused found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder.

The accused had been living in the community but was returned to the hospital after relapsing into severe substance use and experiencing psychotic symptoms.

The Board found that the restriction of liberty was justified, necessary, and the least restrictive option available.

The Board also approved the hospital's request to transfer the accused to a specialized treatment program at another facility, finding it met the statutory objectives and the accused's clinical needs.

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including assault causing bodily harm, choking, and forcible confinement, following a prolonged and violent attack on his intimate partner.

The court considered the severe physical and psychological impact on the victim, the accused's extensive criminal record involving intimate partner violence, and the statutory aggravating factors.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court imposed a total sentence of 60 months in custody after accounting for pre-sentence custody credit.

In a multi-count criminal trial arising from an alleged drug-debt confrontation, the court applied reasonable-doubt principles, credibility and reliability analysis, Vetrovec caution, and Villaroman circumstantial-evidence requirements.

The prosecution proved several breach counts, including counts to which the accused had pleaded guilty, and established an additional probation breach tied to keeping the peace and being of good behaviour.

The prosecution did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed or used a firearm, threatened death, committed assault with a weapon, or committed the remaining firearm-related and related indictable offences.

The court found key inculpatory witness evidence unreliable and concluded competing reasonable inferences remained available on the circumstantial record.

Convictions were entered on five counts, with all other counts dismissed and two counts withdrawn.

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the disposition for an accused found not criminally responsible for assault and weapons offences.

The accused, diagnosed with bipolar affective disorder, had maintained stability and compliance with treatment over the past year.

The hospital recommended a conditional discharge with travel restrictions, which was supported by all parties.

The Board found that the accused continues to pose a significant threat to the safety of the public, but that this risk can now be adequately managed in the community.

A conditional discharge was ordered, including conditions to report monthly, abstain from substances, and obtain approval for travel outside Ontario.

The Ontario Review Board held an annual review hearing for the accused, who was previously found not criminally responsible for assault and related charges.

The accused has diagnoses of schizophrenia and multiple substance use disorders.

The hospital, the Attorney-General, and the accused jointly proposed maintaining a detention disposition.

The Board accepted the uncontroverted evidence of the treating psychiatrist that the accused's fluctuating engagement with treatment and ongoing substance use pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered a detention disposition to manage the risk while supporting the accused's reintegration and treatment needs.

The court sentenced J.P. Dominic Mignac for aggravated assault and resisting arrest following a stabbing incident at a Burger King.

The court found the case fell within the mid-range of sentencing for aggravated assault, considering factors such as provocation, lack of criminal record, remorse, and rehabilitation prospects.

The sentence imposed was two years less a day to be served as a conditional sentence with house arrest, followed by three years' probation, and included ancillary orders such as a DNA order and weapons prohibition.

The decision reviews the applicable sentencing principles and case law, emphasizing the balance between denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

This decision concerns a 13-count indictment against David Bukoski, including criminal harassment, distribution of intimate images, arson, conspiracy, and sexual assault.

The case centers on the aftermath of a breakup between S.M., a Canadian teenager, and Mr. Bukoski, an American, and the extensive harassment and criminal conduct that followed, much of it perpetrated online.

The court found Mr. Bukoski guilty of criminal harassment of S.M. and her mother, distribution of intimate images, and sexual assault, but acquitted him on the arson and conspiracy counts due to reasonable doubt regarding his involvement.

The judgment provides a detailed analysis of the evidence, credibility assessments, and the application of legal principles to complex facts involving internet-facilitated crime.

The accused, previously found not criminally responsible for criminal harassment and failing to comply with a release order, appeared before the Ontario Review Board for an annual hearing.

The hospital and the Attorney-General jointly submitted that the accused no longer posed a significant threat to public safety.

The Board accepted the psychiatric evidence that the accused's schizophrenia symptoms had resolved with treatment, she maintained abstinence from alcohol, and she demonstrated insight and remorse.

The Board found the accused no longer represented a significant threat to the safety of the public and granted an absolute discharge.

The applicant, David Bukoski, sought a stay of criminal proceedings for unreasonable delay under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The prosecution, involving 13 charges including criminal harassment, sexual assault, arson, attempted murder, and conspiracy to commit murder, had taken 71 months, exceeding the 30-month Jordan ceiling.

The court calculated the net delay by subtracting defence-waived delay (5.5 months), defence delay due to applicant's illness (14 months), Crown/complainant circumstances (3 months), and pandemic impact (4 months), and defence's underestimation of trial time (10 months), resulting in a net delay of 34.5 months.

The court found the case to be "particularly complex" due to the nature of the evidence, including extensive internet communications, pseudonyms, international coordination, and the unique circumstances of witnesses.

The Crown was found to have taken reasonable steps to mitigate delay.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for a stay of proceedings, finding the remaining delay justified by the case's complexity.

The accused, Dominic Mignac, was charged with seven counts, including aggravated assault, assault causing bodily harm, attempted murder, and resisting arrest, following a stabbing incident at a Burger King.

The court found the accused guilty of assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and resisting arrest.

However, the charges of attempted murder, uttering a death threat, and carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace were dismissed due to reasonable doubt regarding the specific intent to kill and the purpose of carrying the knife.

The defence of self-defence was rejected as the accused's actions were not deemed a reasonable or proportional response to any perceived threat, particularly after the victim had disengaged.

This is a child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa seeking a finding that three children (S.L., J.L., N.C.) are in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The parents contested the grounds for protection and the disposition.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the children being in need of protection under multiple subsections of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and ordered extended society care.

However, the court found a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the parents' access to the children.

The accused, Ryan Grant Fluet, was found guilty of inviting a person under 16 to sexual touching.

The court addressed two issues: the constitutionality of the one-year mandatory minimum sentence for this offence under s. 152(a) of the Criminal Code, and the fit and proportionate sentence.

The court declared the mandatory minimum sentence unconstitutional, finding it grossly disproportionate in reasonably foreseeable hypothetical scenarios and in the present case, aligning with previous decisions regarding similar offences.

Considering aggravating factors (criminal record, victim's age) and mitigating factors (accused's vulnerable state, concession of guilt, self-study in custody, family support), the court sentenced the accused to time served (seven months imprisonment, credited as 7.6 months pre-sentence custody) followed by three years of probation.

Ancillary orders included a DNA sample and a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, but no s. 161 prohibition order.

The Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order that two children were in need of protection and for extended society care.

The respondent father opposed the motion, arguing that there was a genuine issue for trial.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the evidentiary record, which largely consisted of inadmissible hearsay and conflicting accounts, did not permit a fair and just resolution of the issues without a full trial.

The decision emphasized the significant credibility issues and the Charter rights engaged in child protection proceedings, reinforcing that evidentiary standards are not relaxed for summary judgment motions in this context.

The accused, François Gauthier, was charged with two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm and two counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm following a multi-vehicle collision on Highway 17.

The court found Gauthier's testimony regarding mechanical issues and controlled maneuvers to be incredible, concluding that his driving was objectively dangerous and a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable driver, largely due to his excessive speed and unsafe lane changes.

However, the court acquitted Gauthier on the impaired driving charges, finding that the expert toxicological evidence, while showing the presence of drugs, could not definitively establish impairment at the time of driving due to individual variability and lack of specific testing.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that three children were in need of protection and for final custody orders placing them with their maternal and paternal aunts.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial regarding protection, disposition, and access.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's severe and longstanding mental health issues, threats of violence, and inability to adequately supervise the children.

The court granted the summary judgment, found the children in need of protection, awarded custody to the aunts, and ordered supervised access for the mother.

The accused were charged with numerous weapons offences after police intercepted their vehicle near the border and found a duffel bag containing nine handguns and fourteen high-capacity magazines.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on text messages, the accused's proximity to the bag, and their interactions with the individual who brought the bag into the vehicle.

The court found that the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the contents of the bag, as it was reasonably possible they were simply giving a friend a ride without knowledge of the firearms.

Both accused were acquitted on all counts.

The offenders, who worked as cleaners in a medical office, were convicted of forging prescriptions for opioids and possessing fentanyl and oxycodone.

Both offenders suffered from severe opioid addictions.

The Crown sought custodial sentences of 9 to 12 months, while the defence sought conditional discharges.

The court declined to grant conditional discharges, finding them contrary to the public interest given the seriousness of the offences and lack of rehabilitation plans.

However, considering the significant delay of over five years and the offenders' circumstances, the court imposed 12-month conditional sentences to be served in the community, followed by two years of probation.