OCJ 2023

Noah Hart was charged with assault, uttering a death threat, and two counts of failing to comply with an undertaking.

The Crown conceded the death threat charge, and the defence conceded the two undertaking breaches.

The central issue for the assault charge was credibility and whether the Crown proved intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found the complainant credible with reservations and the defendant also downplayed aspects of his evidence.

Ultimately, the court could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant assaulted the complainant with the requisite intention, finding a reasonable possibility that the fall was accidental.

The assault and death threat charges were dismissed, and convictions were entered for the two counts of failing to comply with an undertaking.

The accused was charged with flight from police, dangerous driving, assaulting police officers, and drug possession following a traffic stop.

The accused argued her s. 9 and s. 10(a) Charter rights were violated because she was arbitrarily detained and not promptly informed of the reasons for her arrest, seeking exclusion of evidence under s. 24(2).

The court found no arbitrary detention under s. 9, as the officer had statutory authority under the Highway Traffic Act to check her sobriety.

However, the court found a breach of s. 10(a) because the officers failed to promptly inform her of the reasons for her detention and arrest.

Despite the breach, the court declined to exclude the officers' observational evidence of her subsequent flight and dangerous driving under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty of flight from police and dangerous driving, but acquitted of assaulting police officers, as she lacked the intent to apply force.

The drug charges were dismissed at the Crown's request.

The accused, Luigi Haaima, applied to attend his summary conviction trial by videoconference, citing his residence being an hour and a half from Pembroke and lack of transportation.

The court reviewed the 2022 amendments to the Criminal Code (Bill S-4) concerning virtual appearances, specifically sections 715.21, 715.23, 715.232, and 715.24, and section 800.

The court interpreted section 715.232, which appears to require consent for non-custodial accused in summary conviction matters, as allowing for residual judicial discretion, especially when read in conjunction with section 800 (permitting trials in absentia).

The court outlined various factors from section 715.23 that must be evidenced to justify a virtual appearance, including personal circumstances, costs, suitability of location, fair hearing rights, and offence seriousness.

The application was dismissed because it only provided bare assertions regarding distance and transportation, which was deemed insufficient without further evidence addressing the enumerated factors.

Leave was granted to file a more comprehensive application.

The accused, Kadah Dematas, was charged with four counts related to offences committed during his arrest by police officers, including assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

The trial focused on the accused's knowledge that the complainants were police officers, whether his actions were a reflex, and if he acted in self-defence.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible, concluding that he intentionally assaulted both officers, knowing they were police, and was not acting in self-defence or reflexively.

Dematas was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against Detective Constable Subramaniam, and assault causing bodily harm against Detective Constable Miller.

He was found not guilty of assault with a weapon against Detective Constable Miller.

The matter was adjourned for sentencing.

The accused, D.S., was charged with unlawful confinement and sexual assault.

The complainant, L.S., alleged D.S. forcibly confined her and digitally penetrated her vagina without consent.

D.S. claimed the sexual contact was consensual and denied confinement, suggesting L.S. fabricated allegations to gain an advantage in family law proceedings.

The court found L.S.'s evidence credible and corroborated by text messages, while D.S.'s testimony was deemed unbelievable and illogical.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, the court concluded that D.S. committed both offences without consent.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking fentanyl, a Schedule I substance, after a friend died from consuming the drug he sold.

The Crown sought a six-year custodial sentence, emphasizing the victim's death and the dangerous nature of fentanyl.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of two years less a day, highlighting the accused's status as an addict trafficker, his significant rehabilitative efforts, early guilty plea, and compliance with strict bail conditions.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by three years probation, including house arrest, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The decision distinguished between commercial traffickers and addict traffickers, emphasizing rehabilitation and the principle of proportionality.

This is a sentencing decision for Zlalame Alemu, who was found guilty of multiple offences including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, failing to comply with a release order, residential break and enter, mischief, and threatening a peace officer.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the serious nature of the injuries, the unprovoked attacks, and the accused's lengthy criminal record, including prior convictions for similar offences.

Mitigating factors included the accused's expression of remorse and his difficult life experiences, including systemic anti-Black racism and mental health issues, as detailed in a Pre-Sentence Report and an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report.

The court applied principles from R. v. Morris regarding anti-Black racism and R. v. Hills regarding conditions of incarceration.

While acknowledging the impact of systemic racism, the court found it did not significantly reduce moral culpability for these specific violent offences given the accused's recidivism and lack of engagement with past rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a global sentence of 30 months, which, after applying credit for pre-sentence custody and substantial mitigation for incarceration conditions, resulted in one further day in custody, followed by a three-year probation order.

Justin Barrett pleaded guilty to failing to comply with a release order, possession of cocaine, fentanyl, a prohibited loaded firearm, and an oversized magazine.

The sentencing hearing was delayed for a 'Morris' report.

Both Crown and defence sought a conditional sentence, differing on its legal basis and length.

The court considered aggravating factors (loaded, modified firearm in public, flight from police, breach of house arrest, drug possession) and significant mitigating factors, including social context evidence (trauma, poverty, racism, lack of support, positive rehabilitation efforts).

The court found Mr. Barrett's moral blameworthiness significantly reduced.

A conditional sentence of two years less one day was imposed for the firearms charges (concurrently with a 60-day conditional sentence for other offences), followed by one year of probation, a DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The sentence included a de-escalating house arrest and curfew period.

The accused, a spiritual healer, was charged with three counts of sexual assault against women during healing ceremonies.

The complainants testified that the accused touched them inappropriately with his hand in intimate areas, contrary to the stated practice of the ceremony.

The accused denied any hand touching, asserting he only used a deer bone as part of the ritual and that hand touching would be inappropriate.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainants, noting their initial self-blame and later realization of the impropriety after hearing similar complaints from others.

The court found the complainants' evidence credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's denials due to inconsistencies and implausibility.

Applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.), the court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching occurred without consent or informed consent, leading to findings of guilt on all charges.

The accused was charged with voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.

The Crown entered an acquittal for uttering threats.

The court assessed the credibility of the complainant and the accused, finding the complainant generally credible and her account supported by physical evidence, while the accused's testimony was unreliable and intentionally dishonest on material issues.

The court found the accused guilty of voyeurism, extortion, sexual assault causing bodily harm, sexual assault (choking), and forcible confinement.

This judgment addresses issues of section 7 expenses and section 9 child support in a shared parenting arrangement.

The court determined the parties' incomes, excluding the father's non-taxable benefits and the mother's RRSP withdrawals (which were used for legal fees).

It found the father's blanket refusal to consent to additional section 7 expenses unreasonable, ordering him to contribute to therapy and competitive dance, but not Montessori tuition or private swimming lessons.

For ongoing child support, despite a set-off calculation, the court ordered the father to pay an additional amount to the mother, considering the higher housing costs incurred by the mother and the father's greater ability to absorb costs.

Michael Bennett and Dylan Griggs were found guilty after trial of possession of fentanyl and crystal methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court considered the serious nature of the drugs, the profit motive, the large quantities involved, and the fact that both were first offenders without drug dependence issues.

Credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions (house arrest, curfew) was factored into the sentences.

Bennett was sentenced to a total of five years in penitentiary, and Griggs was sentenced to a total of eleven years in penitentiary.

Automatic weapons prohibitions, DNA orders, and victim surcharges were also imposed, and seized cash and offence-related property were ordered forfeited.

The accused, L.M., pleaded guilty to child pornography offences.

The Crown sought to prove an unproven historical allegation of sexual assault involving M.L., the daughter of L.M.'s then-partner, as an aggravating fact for a potential long-term offender designation.

The court heard testimony from M.L. and her mother, N.L., and considered the challenges of assessing an adult's testimony about childhood events, including inconsistencies over time.

Applying principles from R. v. W.(R.) and R. v. A.M., the court found M.L. to be a credible and reliable witness, concluding that the sexual assault allegation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite minor inconsistencies attributed to the passage of time and the victim's age at the time of the incident.

This case concerns charges against Wellmasters Plus Inc., Aaron MacDonald, and David Miles MacDonald under the Ontario Water Resources Act and its regulations, arising from well alteration and pump installation work.

The charges included failure to affix a well tag, improper chlorination procedures, failure to clean equipment, and working without a proper license or supervision.

The court found Aaron MacDonald and Wellmasters Plus Inc. guilty on counts 1-4 (well tag, chlorination, equipment cleaning, information package) and Aaron MacDonald guilty on count 6 (unlicensed work).

David Miles MacDonald was found guilty on count 7 (failure to supervise).

Count 5 (well cap installation) was dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

The offender, a racialized transgender woman, was sentenced after being found guilty of assault with a weapon, three counts of assault with intent to resist arrest against police officers, mischief, and breach of probation.

The court considered her difficult background, prior criminal record including a manslaughter conviction, and community work, but found no remorse.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, particularly for assaults on police officers, and determined that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences and the offender's record.

A total sentence of 12 months and 15 days' incarceration was imposed, followed by two years' probation, a 10-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order.

The accused, a transgender woman, was charged with assault with a weapon, multiple counts of assault with intent to resist arrest, mischief, and breach of probation following an altercation outside a store and her subsequent arrest.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging excessive use of force by police under sections 7 and 12.

The court reviewed extensive body-worn camera footage and civilian testimony, rejecting the accused's claims of self-defence and police brutality.

The court found the police used reasonable and proportionate force to effect a lawful arrest against an actively resisting individual.

The accused was found guilty on all counts except one count of assaulting a police officer.

Jerome Bosnjak was found guilty of multiple counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking in Schedule I drugs (crystal methamphetamine, cocaine, Ketamine, GHB) and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court imposed a global sentence of four years' incarceration, less pre-sentence custody, for the drug trafficking offences, with a concurrent 30-day sentence for proceeds of crime.

Aggravating factors included the commercial nature of the drug operation, the offender's absconding during trial, and a complete lack of remorse.

Mitigating factors were few, primarily the agreement to an Agreed Statement of Facts.

Ancillary orders included a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA sample order, and forfeiture of seized cash and drug paraphernalia.

The accused, Paljinder Bhatti, faced a charge of operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking to exclude evidence (breath samples and observations) or stay the charge.

The court dismissed the section 10(b) application, finding that the police adequately informed the accused of her right to counsel and provided a reasonable opportunity to exercise it, including the choice of duty counsel.

The court also dismissed the section 8 application regarding cell video surveillance, concluding that police took reasonable steps to protect the accused's privacy.

However, the Crown conceded a section 8 breach regarding the roadside Approved Screening Device (ASD) demand, as the device was not readily available at the time of the demand, consistent with R. v. Breault.

Applying the Grant factors under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court found that the admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, citing the low seriousness of the police conduct, minimal impact on the accused, and strong societal interest in adjudicating impaired driving cases on their merits.

Consequently, all Charter applications were dismissed, and the breath samples and observations were admitted into evidence for the trial.

The Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, R., seeking placement with her aunt and uncle.

The father opposed, requesting the child's return to his care or expanded access, while the mother and aunt/uncle supported the Society's plan.

The court applied the two-part test under subsection 94(10) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, requiring the Society to demonstrate reasonable grounds of a real possibility of harm if the child were returned to parental care, and that an interim supervision order would be insufficient.

The court found a long history of neglect, including unhygienic living conditions, missed medical appointments, school absences, and concerns arising from the tragic death of another child in the parents' care.

The parents' responses were deemed insufficient to refute the established risks.

The court concluded that the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order with either parent.

Consequently, the motion for temporary care and custody with the aunt and uncle was granted, with supervised access for the parents, and the Society was directed to monitor the child's hygiene and school attendance.

This judgment concerns the trial of Evan Dunlop-Dewar on sexual assault charges.

The court first provided reasons for preliminary rulings, including the severance of counts and the exclusion of the defendant's statement due to Charter Section 10(b) breaches and involuntariness.

Regarding the October 30th sexual assault allegation, the court found significant difficulties with the complainant's credibility and reliability, noting inconsistencies in her testimony, under-reporting of drug use, and evasive demeanour under cross-examination.

Despite forensic evidence of sexual contact, the Crown failed to prove the essential element of lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt, as there was no direct evidence and circumstantial evidence did not establish incapacity.

The defendant was acquitted on counts 2, 3, and 4.

A five-year common-law peace bond was imposed, prohibiting contact and association with the complainant, with specific geographic considerations for their shared industry.