OCJ 2018

A young person was charged with two counts of sexual assault, two counts of sexual interference, and one count of threatening.

The complainant was the accused's younger sister.

The allegations involved multiple incidents of sexual touching occurring between January 2014 and May 2015, and a threatening statement made in November 2017.

The court found the complainant's evidence detailed, consistent, and compelling.

The court rejected the defence evidence and accepted the Crown's submissions.

The accused was convicted on all five counts.

A young person charged with three bank robberies committed with an imitation firearm, along with charges of non-compliance with undertakings and bail orders, sought judicial interim release.

The Crown opposed bail on secondary and tertiary grounds under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the young person presented a substantial likelihood of committing further serious offences if released and that no bail conditions could adequately protect the public or maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The proposed sureties (the young person's parents) were found to be unable to effectively supervise their son, having failed to enforce previous bail orders.

The court ordered the young person detained in custody until trial.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, sexual assault, and forcible confinement arising from an incident on October 31, 2017, in a residential condominium building.

The accused, a custodian at the building, lured the complainant to a secluded stairwell by deception, brandished a knife, and positioned his crotch near her face while restraining her with his forearm.

The complainant resisted and screamed until a neighbor intervened.

The trial judge found the accused guilty on all three counts, determining that the conduct constituted an actual sexual assault (not merely attempted), as the accused deliberately violated the complainant's sexual integrity through the positioning of his genitals near her face in a threatening context, combined with physical restraint.

The applicant sought custody of two children and sought to restrict the respondent's access to supervised visits only, citing concerns about physical discipline and anger management.

The respondent sought to restore what he characterized as the status quo of every weekend access.

The court found that the status quo was the applicant having custody with the respondent exercising weekend access and paying chart child support.

The court rejected the applicant's request for supervised access, finding insufficient evidence to warrant such restriction.

The court established an access schedule of every other weekend and midweek Wednesday visits, with special Christmas access provisions.

The court emphasized the importance of both parents supporting the children's relationship with the other parent and discouraged cross-examination of children about their time with the other parent.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, and breach of probation arising from events on May 30, 2017.

The complainant alleged the accused inflicted bruises on her body during a twelve-hour period at his residence.

The accused raised a self-defence claim, asserting he restrained the complainant to prevent her from harming herself and to protect himself from her aggressive conduct while highly intoxicated.

The court found the complainant's evidence unreliable due to her extreme intoxication and inconsistencies with her prior statements to police.

The court accepted the accused's version of events and found his use of force was reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty of breach of probation but acquitted of assault causing bodily harm and uttering threats.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final order dated July 22, 2015, seeking to terminate child support for two adult sons or reduce support amounts.

The applicant mother opposed termination and sought a retroactive increase in table child support due to undisclosed income increases.

The court found that the father had failed to make required annual financial disclosures.

The court suspended support for the older son (Bradley) pending proof of academic success, maintained support for the younger son (Ryan) with adjusted amounts, and ordered retroactive adjustments to table child support based on the father's actual income.

The accused was convicted of attempted murder after stabbing his co-worker multiple times in the head and neck on January 6, 2016, leaving the victim permanently and severely disabled.

The sole issue at trial was whether the accused suffered from a mental disorder rendering him incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The court found the accused probably suffered from mental illness and depression but retained the ability to know right from wrong.

The accused was sentenced to 17 years imprisonment, with credit for pre-trial custody reducing the remaining sentence to 12 years and 9 months.

The court balanced the brutal nature of the offence and devastating injuries to the victim against the accused's mental illness as a mitigating factor.

The Crown prosecuted two accused for a series of gasoline thefts and possession of stolen license plates occurring between April 2016 and January 2017.

The accused were charged on separate informations but tried together.

The Crown relied on affidavit evidence from gas bar managers, closed-circuit video footage of the thefts, and circumstantial evidence linking both accused to the vehicles and stolen plates used in the offences.

Neither accused testified.

The court found both accused guilty of the theft charges (with one exception due to video distortion) and guilty of possession of stolen license plates based on the striking similarities in the methods of operation, physical characteristics, vehicles, and stolen plates used across all incidents.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support for three young children.

The applicant sought sole custody and primary residence with specified access for the respondent.

The respondent sought sole custody with supervised access for the applicant and child support from the applicant.

The trial proceeded in the absence of the respondent despite proper notice.

The court granted sole custody and primary residence to the applicant based on the applicant's evidence, affidavits from collateral witnesses, and a report from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The court found that joint custody was inappropriate given the parties' inability to communicate effectively and evidence of the respondent's harassing behavior during access exchanges.

Child support was ordered based on the respondent's declared income.

The defendant was arrested based on the odour of burnt marijuana detected by police during a traffic stop.

Following the arrest, police conducted a strip search at the roadside without proper grounds or informational requirements, and delayed informing the defendant of his right to counsel for approximately 50 minutes.

The defendant was charged with possession of controlled drugs for trafficking, assault with intent to resist arrest, administering a noxious substance, and failing to comply with probation.

The court found multiple Charter violations including an unlawful arrest, unreasonable delay in providing s. 10(b) rights, and an improperly conducted strip search.

All evidence was excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in acquittals on all charges.

The accused was charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of his 82-year-old mother and assault causing bodily harm in relation to his aunt.

During an argument at the front door of the family home, the accused pushed his aunt, which caused her to fall into his mother, resulting in his mother falling down concrete stairs.

His mother died in hospital several days later.

The Crown initially pursued a manslaughter charge based on transferred intent but later withdrew this charge after the pathologist's testimony.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his aunt and unlawfully causing bodily harm against his mother, rejecting defences of consensual fight, self-defence, and defence of property.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and possession of cocaine following a minor motor vehicle collision in Waterloo.

The Crown alleged the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol and/or drugs.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and the reliability of the drug recognition evaluation.

The court found the arrest was lawful based on reasonable and probable grounds.

However, the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal on the impaired driving charge.

The court found the accused guilty of possession of cocaine, rejecting his testimony that he was unaware of the drug in borrowed sweatpants.

The accused was stopped at a RIDE program and subjected to a roadside breath test which he failed.

He was arrested and transported to the detachment for an Intoxilyzer test.

Open alcohol was discovered in his vehicle, and the accused subsequently admitted to consuming alcohol in the car.

The arresting officer, despite 18 years of experience and knowledge of mouth alcohol risks, failed to conduct a second breath test or consider the 15-minute rule.

The court found two Charter breaches: first, the failure to reassess reasonable and probable grounds after discovering open alcohol and the accused's admission of recent consumption; and second, a section 10(b) right to counsel violation.

The court excluded the Intoxilyzer readings and acquitted the accused.

The defendant was convicted of sexual offences involving his niece.

During the sentencing phase, the defendant's counsel sought to exclude or redact portions of victim impact statements prepared by the victims.

The court considered the applicable legislation, including the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights and section 722 of the Criminal Code, and relevant case law.

The court ruled that all three victim impact statements would be admitted in their current form, but the judge would disregard certain portions including references to facts not proven at trial, suggestions regarding sentencing, and statements directed at the defendant.

The court balanced the fair trial rights of the accused with the rights of victims to express the impact of the crimes upon them.

The defendant was charged with three counts of sexual assault and three counts of sexual interference arising from alleged misconduct with three separate young female employees at a fast food restaurant.

The defendant brought a Charter application to stay the charges due to excessive delay under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court dismissed the delay application, finding it fundamentally without merit.

On the merits, the court found the defendant not guilty of all charges, determining that while the complainant E presented compelling evidence, the defence evidence created a reasonable doubt about the defendant's guilt that could not be safely displaced.

The court emphasized the importance of maintaining the presumption of innocence and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in sexual assault cases, despite public concern about such offences.

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to s. 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and over 80 contrary to s. 253(1)(b).

The trial proceeded as a blended voir dire to address a Charter application alleging denial of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) due to failure to facilitate interpretation.

The court found no breach of s. 10(b) rights, determining that special circumstances did not exist on an objective basis despite the accused's limited English proficiency.

The court convicted on both counts, finding the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on driving conduct, odour of alcohol, and unsteadiness, and proved the over 80 offence based on breath sample analysis.

The offender was convicted after trial of three bank robberies while disguised, multiple car thefts and attempted car thefts, possession of instruments for breaking into cars, dangerous driving, and flight from police.

The Crown sought a 12-year global sentence consecutive to the offender's existing sentence, with parole eligibility restrictions under section 743.6, forfeiture of $1,350, a 15-year driving prohibition, DNA order, and lifetime weapons prohibition.

The defence sought 7-9 years consecutive.

The court imposed a global sentence of 10 years, comprising 8.5 years for robbery offences, 1 year concurrent on vehicle-related offences (consecutive to robbery sentence), and 6 months concurrent on dangerous driving and flight offences (consecutive to prior sentences).

Parole eligibility was restricted to 50% of the 8.5-year robbery sentence (4 years 3 months).

The court also imposed the requested ancillary orders including a 13-year driving prohibition and 22 years to pay the victim fine surcharge.

The defendant was charged with multiple counts of assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement arising from a domestic relationship spanning from 2004 to 2017.

The trial involved only two witnesses: the complainant and the defendant.

The complainant testified to a series of criminal acts; the defendant denied all allegations.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of both parties' evidence.

Although the judge found the complainant to be largely credible, significant reliability concerns undermined her testimony, including memory blocking, delayed disclosure, lack of corroboration, and inconsistencies between her police statement and trial testimony.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

A child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act where the society sought extended society care with no access, and the respondent mother sought return of the child with supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection due to risk of physical and emotional harm arising from the mother's untreated mental health issues (severe PTSD, anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation), ongoing substance abuse (crystal methamphetamine and marijuana), inability to follow professional direction, and lack of reliable family support.

The court determined the child was not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child and made an order for extended society care without access, with the foster parents approved for adoption.

A family law trial concerning custody, access, and child support for two children following the separation of the parents.

The mother sought custody, retroactive child support from January 2014, and permission to travel with the children outside Canada.

The father sought joint custody and offered to pay support based on declared income of $12,000 annually.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother with consultation requirements for major decisions, established an access schedule for the younger child with the father, and determined that the father's guideline income included non-taxable OSAP grants, resulting in significantly higher imputed income than claimed.

Retroactive support was ordered from November 2015 with arrears payable at $100 monthly.