OCJ 2020

The paternal grandparents brought a motion to be added as party respondents in a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The grandparents had been caring for the child for approximately 17 months under a temporary care and custody order.

The parents opposed the motion, while the society took no position.

The court granted the motion, finding that the grandparents qualified as statutory "parents" under the Act and met the established criteria for party status.

The court emphasized the importance of considering kinship placements and the best interests of the child, particularly given the grandparents' demonstrated capacity to care for the child.

The applicant father brought a motion seeking to vary a temporary without prejudice consent agreement signed by the parties in July 2019.

The father sought to vary provisions regarding access supervision, the presence of the paternal grandmother during access, and child support amounts.

The court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the consent agreement had never been incorporated into a formal court order and therefore could not be varied.

The court recommended that the parties bring motions for interim orders within the existing application rather than attempting to vary the unenforced consent.

The applicant, as litigation guardian for two minor children, sought disclosure of records held by the Crown and Ontario Provincial Police relating to the investigation and prosecution of a young person under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The applicant sought these records to support a civil negligence action against the Children's Aid Society.

The court granted partial access to records relating to charges to which the young person pleaded guilty and charges that were withdrawn, while denying access to records relating to allegations where no charges were laid.

The court applied the statutory tests under sections 119 and 123 of the YCJA, balancing the applicant's need for disclosure against the privacy protections afforded to young persons.

A ruling on the admissibility of a statement made by a young person (YF) charged with first degree murder.

The Crown sought to admit an inculpatory statement made during police interrogation.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine whether the preconditions for admissibility under section 146 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act were satisfied.

The court found that the Crown failed to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the enhanced procedural protections required by the YCJA were complied with, and ruled the statement inadmissible.

The defendant brought a Charter application to exclude a loaded handgun discovered during a warrantless search of his apartment.

The defendant alleged violations of sections 8 and 10(a) of the Charter.

The court found that the defendant's mother, who was a tenant, gave valid consent to a protective visual search of the apartment conducted by Sergeant Wallbank.

The court also found that the search was justified as a safety search under common law authority to protect life and ensure scene safety.

The court concluded that no Charter violations occurred and dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

Following a brief trial, the defendant was found guilty of sexual assault and not guilty of assault.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted that a suspended sentence with two years of probation was appropriate.

The court accepted the joint submission, crediting 102 days of pre-trial custody at a 1.5:1 ratio (153 days equivalent).

The sentence included probation conditions, a weapons prohibition, DNA sampling requirements, and mandatory registration under the Sex Offender Information Registration Act for 10 years.

The applicant was arrested for impaired operation after police discovered him apparently asleep behind the wheel of his father's car at a traffic light.

The applicant sought exclusion of breath sample results and police observations under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging violation of his section 10(b) right to counsel.

The Crown conceded a section 10(b) Charter violation during the voir dire, specifically that police failed to establish they contacted the applicant's chosen counsel.

The court found the violation was moderately serious but ultimately admitted the breath sample evidence, finding that exclusion would undermine confidence in the justice system despite the Charter breach.

The Crown sought to admit a prior video-recorded statement made by a child witness to police as substantive evidence of hearsay.

The child witness had failed to adopt the statement at trial and testified with apparent memory loss regarding the events.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault by suffocation, sexual assault, assault of a child, and threatening bodily harm.

The court conducted an admissibility voir dire to determine whether the hearsay statement met the threshold reliability and necessity requirements under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The defendant was convicted of sexual assault following a trial.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of two to three years, while the defendant sought an intermittent jail sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less one day in a provincial reformatory followed by 18 months probation.

The court considered the seriousness of the offense, the defendant's youth and first-offender status, the significant psychological harm to the complainant, and the collateral consequences of imprisonment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The defendant was charged with seven firearm-related offences.

The Crown withdrew one count to proceed summarily on six remaining charges under the Criminal Code.

The defendant admitted to handling a firearm and ammunition found in his former girlfriend's vehicle but claimed he discovered them inadvertently in the glove compartment while searching for his lighter.

The Crown alleged the defendant knowingly possessed the firearm and stored it carelessly in the vehicle.

The court found the defendant's explanation incredible and rejected his testimony as contrived.

The court concluded the defendant had knowingly possessed the firearm and stored it in the vehicle while he was inside a bar.

The defendant was convicted of careless storage of a firearm, careless storage of ammunition, possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm, and possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm in a motor vehicle.

The defendant was acquitted of possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose and possession of a firearm with readily accessible ammunition.

The defendant was charged with driving with an excess blood alcohol concentration, breaking and entering with intent to commit mischief, and mischief to property.

The Crown called six witnesses and the defendant testified in his own defence.

The court found that the defendant drove with an impermissibly high blood alcohol concentration and broke into a towing compound by climbing through an unlocked window and disabling the mechanical gate to retrieve his rental car.

However, the court found that the defendant's evidence regarding his intent to retrieve his painkillers and his willingness to restore the gate was credible and not undermined by cross-examination.

The court acquitted the defendant on the breaking and entering and mischief charges due to lack of requisite mens rea, but convicted on the impaired driving charge.

The applicant sought disclosure of materials to support a Garofoli challenge to a search warrant executed at his residence.

The applicant was charged with possession of fentanyl for trafficking and possession of a loaded firearm.

The prosecution relied on redacted portions of the Information to Obtain (ITO) to protect a confidential informant's identity.

The applicant challenged the existence of the confidential informant status, asserting the person was a police agent or agent provocateur.

The court determined whether disclosure of various documents was required under the reasonable possibility test for Garofoli applications.

The accused was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, impaired operation, and operation with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 mL following a high-speed chase through residential areas.

The defence brought Charter applications challenging the admissibility of breath test evidence on grounds of violations of sections 7, 8, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found a breach of section 8 (right to privacy) regarding cell toilet surveillance and excluded the breath test evidence pursuant to section 24(2).

However, the court convicted the accused on the dangerous operation and impaired operation charges based on the totality of the evidence, including observations of the accused's driving and physical condition.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and having a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

A citizen called 911 reporting dangerous driving, and police observed the vehicle swerving between lanes, nearly striking a parked bus.

Upon stopping the vehicle, the officer detected a strong odour of alcohol and observed signs of impairment.

The defence challenged the arrest and detention under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, and disputed the Crown's proof of impairment.

The court found reasonable grounds for arrest, no arbitrary detention, and no breach of the right to counsel despite language barriers.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, with the second count stayed under the Kienapple rule.

The defendant applied under s. 278.92(1) of the Criminal Code to determine the admissibility of text messages between the complainant and her son that were disclosed in family law proceedings.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and uttering death threats.

The defence argued the messages indicated the complainant acknowledged the charges were false but feared prosecution if she recanted.

The Crown and complainant's counsel opposed admission, arguing the inference was speculative and the messages lacked significant probative value.

The court found the messages were relevant to the central issue of the complainant's credibility and had significant probative value.

The court admitted the messages but restricted cross-examination to the text message portion of the affidavit to prevent collateral attacks on the complainant's credibility regarding family law matters.

The Crown charged the defendant with assault causing bodily harm, possession of a firearm and ammunition, possession of controlled substances, and failure to comply with release conditions.

The Crown's case relied on DNA evidence linking the defendant to items found in a vehicle that fled the scene of a stabbing at a bar.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove all counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence regarding the assault was insufficient as the knife blade and handle were not properly linked to the incident, and there was no evidence connecting the victim identified through DNA to the person assisted by the bar owner.

The possession counts failed because DNA evidence alone, showing the defendant's profile among multiple contributors on items, could not establish possession on the date alleged.

No evidence was presented on the failure to comply counts.

All charges were dismissed.

The defendant challenged a search warrant for a safe found in a vehicle following arrests related to a stabbing.

The defendant sought to exclude evidence obtained from the safe, arguing the warrant was invalid due to an improper warrantless search incident to arrest.

The court conducted a Garofoli review to determine whether credible evidence supported the warrant's issuance.

The court found the limited flashlight inspection of the safe was reasonable as incidental to arrest and that the Information to Obtain contained sufficient credible evidence to support the warrant.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant brought a motion for a ruling on standing to challenge the search of a safe found in a vehicle following an altercation at a bar.

The defendant sought to challenge both the search warrant for the safe and alleged violations of the vehicle owner's rights during her arrest and vehicle search.

The court found that the defendant had standing to challenge the search warrant based on the Crown's theory that items in the safe were in the defendant's possession, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in R v Jones.

However, the court found the defendant lacked standing to challenge alleged violations of the vehicle owner's rights, as the defendant had no privacy or property interest in the vehicle.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and the search of his vehicle under sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown sought to establish that police had reasonable grounds to arrest the defendant based on evidence from a wiretap investigation into a jewelry store robbery.

The defendant argued that certain information was inadmissible and that the remaining evidence was insufficient to establish reasonable grounds.

The court found that the admissible evidence, including wiretap intercepts discussing the movement of a firearm, observations of a meeting between the defendant's vehicle and a suspect, and subsequent communications, provided a sufficient objective basis for the arrest and search.

The applicant challenged the warrantless seizure of his cellular phone subscriber information obtained by police during a Part VI wiretap authorization for a robbery investigation.

The applicant was not a suspect and was not named in the authorization.

Police obtained his subscriber information after intercepting an innocuous conversation between the applicant and a named target.

The court found that the seizure violated s. 8 of the Charter as it was not authorized by law.

The assistance order under s. 487.02 does not authorize expansion of investigations to unnamed persons without reasonable grounds.

The court excluded the subscriber information and any derivative evidence under s. 24(2), finding the breach serious and that admission would undermine public confidence in the rule of law.