Norman D. Boxall

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident on a public bus.

The Court of Appeal previously dismissed the sexual assault conviction appeal but allowed the sentence appeal.

In this endorsement regarding the mischief conviction, the Court found that the trial judge erred by convicting the appellant without particularizing the property interfered with or conducting a separate analysis of the elements of the offence.

The mischief conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant appealed his convictions and sentences for sexual assault and mischief arising from an incident where he touched the complainant and raised her skirt on a public bus.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the conviction appeal for sexual assault, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, finding that the original sentence of six months' imprisonment was wholly disproportionate for a first offender with 13 days of pre-sentence custody.

The sentence was varied to a suspended sentence with two years' probation.

The accused was convicted of preventing or endeavouring to prevent an elector from voting at the federal election held on May 2, 2011, contrary to the Canada Elections Act.

The accused, as communications director for the local Conservative candidate in Guelph, was a major and active participant in a scheme involving approximately 7,000 automated telephone calls directing targeted non-Conservative supporters to false polling locations.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months imprisonment followed by 12 months probation, emphasizing that general deterrence and denunciation were the primary sentencing principles given the serious nature of interference with the democratic electoral process.

During the 2011 federal election campaign in Guelph, Ontario, automated telephone calls were made to approximately 6,738 voters falsely indicating that their polling stations had been changed to another location.

The accused, Michael Sona, was the communications director for the Conservative Party candidate.

The Crown alleged that Sona was responsible for creating and placing these calls, or alternatively, that he was a party to the offence by aiding or abetting those who did.

The defence argued that while the circumstances raised suspicions, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found Sona guilty, determining that although the evidence did not establish he personally uploaded the messages to the automated calling service, he was actively involved in creating the scheme and was a party to the offence through aiding and abetting.

The applicants brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that their rights to trial within a reasonable time had been violated by delay exceeding 20 months between accusation and trial.

The applicants argued that Crown delay of approximately 7 months and institutional delay of approximately 8.5 months, combined with inherent and actual prejudice, rendered a fair trial impossible.

The Crown countered that much of the delay was neutral, resulting from mutual agreement of all counsel to delay trial pending exhaustive negotiations on resolution.

The court found that the bulk of the delay resulted from a mutual understanding among all counsel to postpone setting an early trial date to permit further investigation and reconsideration of reasonable prospect of conviction, particularly regarding identification evidence.

The court concluded that s. 11(b) was not breached, as the delay fell within Morin guidelines for a serious multi-accused prosecution, and any actual prejudice was attributable to the fact of the charges rather than the delay itself.

The accused pleaded guilty to failure to remain at the scene of an accident causing death contrary to s.252(1.3)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused struck a pedestrian with her vehicle and fled the scene without rendering assistance.

The victim died from injuries sustained in the collision.

The court imposed a five-month custodial sentence followed by 12 months probation and a two-year driving prohibition.

The sentencing balanced the serious nature of the offence and the need for general deterrence and denunciation against the accused's youth, lack of prior record, genuine remorse, and excellent rehabilitation prospects.

The Crown brought a motion during a jury trial seeking to prevent the accused from advancing the defence of honest but mistaken belief in communicated consent.

The issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to meet the “air of reality” threshold under s. 265(4) of the Criminal Code.

Applying the governing test from appellate jurisprudence, the court held that the trial judge must assume the defence evidence is true and determine only whether a properly instructed jury could acquit if it believed that evidence.

The court found that the accused’s testimony provided some evidence capable of supporting the defence, including evidence relating to the complainant’s conduct and inconsistencies in prior statements.

The court ruled that the defence met the minimal threshold and could be put to the jury.

The Board issued an amended decision on findings regarding a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of 1605511 Ontario Inc. operating as The Drink.

Pursuant to Rule 2.7 of the Revised Rules of Practice, the Board amended paragraphs 232, 233, and 310 of its previous decision to clarify the timing of a witness's will-say statement and the nature of the quarrelsome behaviour.

The Board also invited written submissions on penalty from the parties.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of The Drink for 14 days, alleging violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations.

The allegations stemmed from incidents where underage patrons gained entry using false identification, consumed alcohol, and were involved in a violent altercation where a glass was thrown.

The Board found that the Licensee breached s. 30(4) of the Act by permitting minors to consume liquor, and s. 41(1) of the Regulation by failing to inspect identification before serving them.

However, the Board declined to find a violation of s. 45(1) regarding permitting violent conduct, as the altercation happened suddenly and staff responded appropriately by ejecting the patrons.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued Notices of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the respondent establishment for alleged violations including service after hours, failing to clear signs of service, permitting drunkenness, and operating an illegal poker tournament.

At the hearing, the parties presented an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission on Disposition.

The Board accepted the joint submission, finding the licensee breached the regulations, and ordered a 13-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The Registrar of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the liquor licence of the Royal Oak Restaurant.

The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts admitting that the licensee permitted patrons to remove liquor from the establishment and allowed an intoxicated patron on the premises, contrary to the regulations under the Liquor Licence Act.

The Board accepted the joint submission on disposition and ordered an 8-day suspension of the liquor licence.

The appellant appealed his conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol level over 80 milligrams.

He argued he had already been acquitted of the offence and that the trial judge erred in finding he had care or control.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the first ground but allowed the appeal on the second.

The Court held that the trial judge's conclusion that opening a passenger door to deposit a bag constituted a risk of danger was unreasonable, as there was no indication the appellant intended to resume driving.

The conviction was set aside and a new trial ordered.

The appellant, a junior police officer, was dismissed after pleading guilty to discreditable conduct for off-duty shoplifting of items worth $6.10.

At the time of the incident, she was suffering from major depression.

She appealed the penalty of dismissal.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission allowed the appeal, finding that while the conduct was discreditable, the penalty of dismissal was excessive given her unblemished record, her acceptance of responsibility, and the psychiatric evidence explaining her behaviour.

The penalty was varied to a forfeiture of 20 days off.