OCJ 2019

The accused pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences including sexual assault with a weapon, making and possessing child pornography, sexual interference, voyeurism, assault, uttering threats, and failing to comply with probation.

The accused sexually abused young children in his care while babysitting, filming the abuse, and also possessed a large collection of internet-based child pornography.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years, less enhanced pre-trial custody credit of 2 years and 9 months, resulting in an additional 9 years and 3 months in custody.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, lifetime sex offender registration, and lifetime restrictions on contact with children.

The applicant mother sought an order for no access between the respondent father and their young child, citing the father's prior abusive and drug-using behaviour during their relationship, his inconsistent attendance at supervised access visits, and safety concerns with the father's family.

The respondent sought to continue supervised access with a progression to unsupervised access.

The court found that while the father's prior conduct and inconsistent attendance were concerning, they did not meet the high threshold for terminating access entirely.

The court noted that the mother had unilaterally suspended access in violation of court orders, preventing a fair assessment of whether supervised access could succeed.

The court ordered continued supervised access at Merrymount, with progression to alternate weekends after three consecutive attended visits.

The applicant father sought liberal and generous access to his 13-year-old son, a non-removal order preventing the respondent mother from travelling outside Canada with the child, and rescission of a temporary restraining order.

The mother sought dismissal of the application and to make the restraining order final.

The court found that the father was solely responsible for the estrangement from his son through a pattern of hostile, aggressive, and threatening behaviour both before and after a motor vehicle accident in 2017.

Despite multiple opportunities and suggestions to seek mental health treatment, the father failed to comply.

The court determined that access should be at the mother's discretion and in accordance with the child's wishes, and that the restraining order should be made final.

The applicant sought production of third-party records (medical and counseling records) maintained by the complainant's physician and two counseling facilities pursuant to section 278.7 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant was charged with three sexual offences alleged to have occurred between 1996 and 1999.

The complainant did not report the allegations until 2018, approximately two decades later.

The court conducted a two-stage hearing under the Mills application framework.

The complainant conceded the first stage threshold was satisfied and agreed to judicial inspection of the records.

At the second stage, the court balanced the applicant's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests and societal interests in encouraging reporting of sexual offences and obtaining treatment.

The court ordered limited production of redacted portions of the records that substantively referenced the incidents forming the basis of the criminal allegations, subject to conditions restricting copying, sub-distribution, and requiring destruction upon disposition of the matter.

A young person charged with three counts of sexual assault and invitation to sexual touching involving his younger cousin was acquitted of all charges.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the complainant, a 13-year-old girl at trial who alleged repeated sexual assaults including penile penetration occurring approximately 25 times between August and December 2017.

The court found that while the complainant appeared credible in demeanor, her evidence suffered from significant reliability issues stemming from a tainted initial disclosure, material inconsistencies between her accounts to her mother, the Children's Aid Society, and police, and an implausible account of the alleged penile penetration incidents.

The court determined the Crown failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A family law application concerning custody, access, and child support following separation and criminal charges of assault and sexual assault.

The applicant mother sought sole custody with no access for the respondent father, while the respondent sought joint custody with unsupervised access.

The court found the father was physically, verbally, and emotionally abusive to both the mother and children.

Despite the father's acquittal in criminal proceedings, the civil standard of balance of probabilities supported findings of abuse.

The court granted sole custody to the mother, permitted the father to send letters, cards, and gifts only, and imputed income for child support purposes based on intentional underemployment.

The defendant was charged with three child luring offences arising from a police undercover operation.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence linking the defendant to text messages exchanged with an undercover officer posing as a young escort.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who engaged in the text message exchange.

Additionally, even if identity had been established, the court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant believed or was willfully blind to the fact that the person was underage, given the conflicting information in the advertisement and messages.

The defendant was acquitted on all counts.

The respondent sought to amend his pleadings to advance claims for joint custody, child support, and access to the subject child, and to re-open a partially heard motion for summary judgment.

The court found that while the respondent had a right to amend pleadings under the Family Law Rules, many of the proposed claims lacked legal or evidential merit, including joint custody, section 7 extraordinary expenses for transportation, and a restraining order.

The court permitted amendment only for access-related claims, adjusted temporary child support based on the respondent's disclosed income, and scheduled the motion for summary judgment to continue.

The court emphasized that the respondent's primary deficiency was not deficient pleadings but rather the lack of a practical and workable access plan.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident in which a complainant alleged that a man grabbed her buttocks outside an apartment building on Sherbourne Street in Toronto at approximately 3:30-4:00 a.m.

The complainant followed the alleged assailant to a convenience store and identified him on surveillance video.

The Crown relied primarily on the complainant's eyewitness identification.

The court acquitted the accused, finding that despite the complainant's detailed account and her absolute certainty, the cumulative frailties of her evidence, including inconsistencies regarding the assailant's build, the colour and design of his t-shirt, and the inherent dangers of eyewitness identification evidence, left the court in reasonable doubt as to the accused's identity as the perpetrator.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, identity theft, and possession of counterfeit money.

The defendant challenged the circumstances of his arrest under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter and sought enhanced credit for pre-trial detention at Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

The court found no Charter violations in the arrest execution and rejected most claims regarding harsh detention conditions, though it granted limited additional credit for an assault suffered in custody.

The court imposed a sentence of 45 months incarceration, with credit for 399 days of pre-trial detention, resulting in time served plus 32 months additional custody.

In a child protection proceeding under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the respondent mother sought an adjournment of a summary judgment motion scheduled for April 18, 2019.

The mother's previous counsel had withdrawn on February 27, 2019, leaving her unrepresented.

She retained new counsel on March 27, 2019, but counsel required additional time to prepare, citing incomplete disclosure from the Children's Aid Society and the complexity of the issues involved.

The court granted the adjournment despite opposition from the society and the child's counsel, balancing the mother's right to procedural fairness and adequate legal representation against the child's interest in expeditious resolution.

The court emphasized that while delay is generally unacceptable in child protection proceedings, fairness to both parent and child sometimes necessitates limited delays to ensure proper consideration of the case on its merits.

A motion to change a joint custody order where the respondent sought sole custody and the applicant initially sought sole custody but later withdrew that request, instead challenging whether a material change in circumstances had occurred.

The parties had entered into a Minutes of Settlement providing for joint custody with alternating two-week care periods.

Following deterioration in parental communication and a precipitating event in which the applicant relocated the child to Saskatchewan without the respondent's knowledge, the court found a material change in circumstances.

The court awarded sole custody to the respondent, finding that joint custody was unworkable given the parents' inability to communicate and the applicant's pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The Children's Aid Society sought findings of risk of physical harm, emotional harm, and emotional harm with treatment not provided under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act regarding two children.

The mother had a history of inappropriate physical discipline, verbal abuse, and failure to engage with professional services.

The father did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found that both children were in need of protection and ordered them into interim Society care for six months with access to the mother at the Society's discretion.

Paternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as parties to a Status Review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The grandparents had care and custody of their grandson by court order and sought full party status to participate in the proceeding.

The Children's Aid Society and Children's Lawyer consented, but the mother opposed.

The court found that the grandparents were statutory parties under section 79 of the CYFSA as they had lawful custody of the child, and therefore the motion was redundant.

The court granted the order recognizing their party status and set timelines for service and filing of materials.

The Crown appealed an acquittal in a prosecution under the Smoke Free Ontario Act for selling tobacco to a minor.

The respondent corporation operated a truck stop convenience store where a 17-year-old purchased cigarettes without being asked for identification.

The Crown alleged the trial justice erred in finding the respondent established the due diligence defence.

The appeal court upheld the acquittal, finding the respondent had implemented comprehensive training, supervision, and compliance measures that resulted in three years of successful compliance checks following prior enforcement notices.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle with a major defect, contrary to section 107 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defects included inoperative brakes on a trailer and a crack in a wheel rim, discovered during an MTO inspection on June 18, 2017.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: lack of evidence of proper service of summons, improper application of credibility assessment principles, and failure to consider the due diligence defence.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, finding that the summons was properly served, the trial judge correctly applied the W.D. analysis, and the trial judge properly assessed whether the appellant met the due diligence standard for a strict liability offence.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation (2x) following an incident on August 9, 2018, in which the victim was slashed across the face with a knife outside a men's shelter.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The Crown presented direct evidence from the victim, extensive video surveillance evidence, DNA evidence linking the accused to clothing found at the scene, DNA evidence of the victim on a knife found during the accused's arrest, and non-expert recognition evidence from police officers.

The defence conceded the accused was present at the scene but argued an alternative suspect may have committed the assault.

The court found the evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on all counts.

A corporate defendant charged with animal cruelty offences brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on alleged abuse of process due to the Crown's refusal to provide first-party disclosure.

The defendant sought investigative files and internal correspondence from the OSPCA relating to the key witness and the investigation.

The court held that while the defendant, as a corporation, could not invoke section 7 of the Charter, it retained jurisdiction to address disclosure obligations under common law and the Provincial Offence Act.

The court distinguished between first-party disclosure (fruits of the investigation and obviously relevant material) and third-party disclosure, finding that most of the requested materials fell outside the Crown's disclosure obligations.

The court declined to grant a stay of proceedings but ordered the OSPCA to disclose investigative files and agent notes related to the specific investigation within 30 days prior to trial.

The accused was charged with assault, unlawful confinement, uttering threats, mischief, and historical allegations of assault and threatening arising from an incident on December 21, 2017.

The complainant, the accused's daughter, gave a detailed videotaped statement to police describing the assault and confinement, but recanted at trial, claiming the allegations were fabricated.

The court found the complainant had committed perjury and assessed the comparative reliability of her two accounts.

Security camera footage corroborated key aspects of the police statement.

The court convicted on counts 1 and 2 (assault and unlawful confinement) based on the police statement corroborated by video evidence, but acquitted on counts 3, 4, and 5-7 due to insufficient corroboration or detail.

The applicant sought an ex parte application for fine extension following a sentencing imposed on November 13, 2018, which included a $1,600 fine and a $480 Victim Fine Surcharge.

On December 14, 2018, the Supreme Court of Canada declared the victim fine surcharge provisions of the Criminal Code unconstitutional and invalid.

The court found that the mandatory victim surcharge violated section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms not only when imposed but each time it was enforced.

The court vacated the $480 Victim Fine Surcharge and addressed time to pay the remaining fine.