OCJ 2024

Joao Guimaraes was found in contempt of court for refusing to testify as a Crown witness at a preliminary inquiry.

Despite being cautioned, he repeatedly refused to answer questions, citing fear for his safety.

At the subsequent contempt hearing, he did testify and answered all questions.

The court considered the seriousness of contempt, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, but also noted mitigating factors: Guimaraes' youth (23), lack of prior record, genuine fear, and the limited impact of his refusal on the preliminary hearing's outcome.

He had also been acquitted of the underlying firearms charges and had served 40 days (credited as 60 days) in pre-sentence custody for the contempt.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with six months of probation, finding the pre-sentence custody sufficient accountability given the unique circumstances.

The defendant, Olavo Williams-Cordeiro, was charged with careless driving causing death and stunt driving following a high-speed incident on Highway 403.

The court found that the defendant, along with a motorcyclist and another car, were engaged in a joint enterprise of racing, driving at speeds significantly exceeding the limit (up to 193 km/hr for the defendant's vehicle).

The motorcyclist collided with a vehicle lacking rear lights and died.

The court determined that the defendant's driving behaviour, characterized by excessive speed, tandem driving, and dangerous lane changes in the dark, fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, constituting careless driving.

The court rejected the defence argument that the collision occurred through no fault of the defendant, emphasizing that the dangerous activity of racing created a foreseeable risk, and the presence of a vehicle without lights was a foreseeable highway hazard.

The defendant was found guilty of both charges, with the Kienapple principle to be considered for sentencing.

This motion to change involved a father's request to vary a final order regarding child support and parenting time, and the mother's cross-motion to strike the father's pleadings and bar future motions due to non-compliance with prior orders.

The court dismissed the father's request to set aside the child support and costs order, citing his repeated non-disclosure and non-compliance.

However, the court stayed his motion to change child support, imposing conditions for lifting the stay, including payment towards outstanding costs.

The court set aside the suspension of the father's parenting time, finding it was made without proper notice, and ordered temporary supervised parenting time, emphasizing the child's right to a relationship with both parents despite serious criminal charges against the father.

The accused, Afrah Mohamed, was charged with unauthorized possession of a firearm and ammunition.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, which was dismissed.

The central issue at trial was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he was in constructive possession of the firearm and ammunition found during a search.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove constructive possession, as the evidence did not establish the accused's knowledge and control of the items beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused, Jing Wen Shi, was charged with failing to provide the necessities of life to her newborn baby, contrary to section 215(2)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, after giving birth alone at home.

The Crown alleged she knew of the pregnancy and purposely neglected the baby.

The defence argued she was unaware of the pregnancy until labour and was physically incapacitated by shock and blood loss.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding her prior knowledge of pregnancy and her physical capacity to act, concluding that her actions did not amount to a marked departure from the standard of care of a reasonably prudent parent in the circumstances.

The accused was found not guilty.

The defendant, Ephraim Mohlala, was charged with sexual assault.

The central issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the complainant and the defendant.

The court applied the principles from R. v. W.(D.) and found the complainant generally truthful but with several reliability concerns and one credibility concern, particularly regarding inconsistencies and omissions in her statements about the incident, alcohol consumption, and injuries.

While the court did not entirely believe the defendant's denial of sexual contact, it found that the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, coupled with the burden of proof on the prosecution, left the court in a state of reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, break and enter, and being unlawfully in a dwelling house after breaking into a stranger's apartment and sexually assaulting her.

The accused claimed he was in a dissociative state due to bereavement, lack of sleep, lack of food, and alcohol consumption, leading him to mistakenly believe he was in his childhood home in Casablanca with his fiancée.

The court emphatically rejected the accused's testimony as incredible and implausible.

The court found no air of reality to the mistake of fact defence, noting that self-induced intoxication short of automatism is not a defence to general intent crimes like sexual assault.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant was charged with multiple drug trafficking and firearm offences.

He admitted to trafficking cocaine and possessing proceeds of crime, and cocaine for trafficking.

The contested charges were possession of a firearm and possession of fentanyl for trafficking.

The court found the defendant guilty of the firearm charges, rejecting his explanation that the firearm belonged to another individual, Bogdan, due to inconsistencies in his testimony and strong circumstantial evidence (defendant's bank card and personal ornaments found with the firearm).

However, the court acquitted the defendant of the fentanyl charge, finding reasonable doubt due to weaknesses in the prosecution's evidence regarding the location and association of the fentanyl with the defendant's documents, despite the defendant's impaired credibility.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the defendant operating his vehicle where cocaine was found in the centre console.

The court applied the principles of reasonable doubt and constructive possession, emphasizing that vehicle ownership does not create a presumption of knowledge or possession.

Due to numerous gaps in the prosecution's evidence, including lack of forensic links, inconsistent vehicle control, and insufficient investigation into other potential users, the court found reasonable doubt regarding the defendant's knowledge and control of the cocaine.

The defendant was acquitted.

This judgment at trial addresses criminal charges against the defendant, Maxim Dorofeev, for incidents on November 7, 2022 (assault, choking, unlawful confinement) and August 25, 2022 (assault).

The court found the defendant guilty of assault and choking under s.267(c) of the Criminal Code for the November 7 incident, ordering a conditional stay for the simple assault count from the same date.

The defendant was acquitted of unlawful confinement for November 7 and assault for August 25.

The court's decision involved a detailed assessment of witness credibility and reliability, particularly concerning the complainant's and defendant's conflicting accounts, and the corroborative value of independent witness testimony and physical evidence.

The Crown appealed a sentence imposed by a lower court after the respondents pleaded guilty to breaches of the Building Code Act.

The appeal concerned whether the sentencing judge erred by undercutting a joint submission on the fine amount.

The appellate court found that the sentencing judge failed to follow the established framework for departing from joint submissions, specifically by not raising concerns or inviting further submissions, and by not providing cogent reasons for the departure.

The appeal was allowed, and the fine was substituted to the amount originally proposed in the joint submission.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm, failing to comply with a release order, and obstructing justice, in addition to two other fail to comply counts to which he pleaded guilty.

The central issue at trial was the credibility and reliability of the complainant.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be unreliable due to significant inconsistencies, delayed disclosure linked to civil proceedings, an uncooperative demeanor regarding photographic evidence, and the implausible calm demeanor of the children immediately after the alleged assault.

Discrepancies between the complainant's account and the neighbour's testimony and audio recording further contributed to the court's doubt.

The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused, Ashton Bell, faced serious firearms charges and brought a Charter application under s. 24(2) to exclude evidence (a firearm) alleging breaches of ss. 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), primarily due to racial profiling during a traffic stop, search, and arrest.

The Crown conceded a s. 10(b) breach (delay in access to counsel) but argued for admission of evidence.

The court found no racial profiling or s. 8/9 breaches, but confirmed the s. 10(b) breach.

Applying the Grant test, the court determined that admitting the firearm would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, given the less serious nature of the breach, minimal impact on the accused, and high societal interest in adjudicating serious firearms offences.

The evidence was admitted, leading to conviction on all charges.

The defendant, Anson Keung, was charged with firearms offences after a loaded handgun was found during a pat-down search following an arrest based on mistaken identity.

The defence brought a Charter application, arguing arbitrary detention (s. 9) and unlawful search (s. 8), seeking exclusion of the evidence under ss. 24(1) and 24(2).

The court found that the police's actions, including the investigative detention and pat-down search, were reasonable given the dynamic situation and concerns for officer safety, particularly due to the actual suspect's history with firearms.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the defendant was found guilty on all three charges.

The Crown sought a recognizance under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code against Steven Noel Wice, alleging fear on reasonable grounds that he would commit a serious personal injury offence.

The court reviewed Wice's extensive criminal history, including a prior dangerous offender designation, psychiatric assessments diagnosing antisocial personality disorder and high risk of violent recidivism, and his consistent failure to engage in anger management treatment.

Despite some positive conduct, the court found the Crown's fear objectively reasonable due to Wice's past behaviour and lack of progress in addressing his anger issues.

The court imposed an 8-month recognizance with specific conditions, including reporting, weapons prohibition, substance abstinence (except cannabis), disclosure of intimate relationships, and mandatory anger management treatment.

Matthew McLellan pleaded guilty to aggravated assault for unprovoked knife attacks on two homeless individuals.

The court considered aggravating factors including victim vulnerability, bias against homeless persons, and the violent, impulsive nature of the attacks.

Mitigating factors included the offender's youth, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, remorse, and efforts at rehabilitation.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, concluding that a custodial sentence was required over a conditional sentence.

The offender was sentenced to 22 months of custody, with a six-month credit for strict bail conditions, resulting in an additional six months to serve, followed by two years of probation.

The defendant, Vivian McClintock, appeared for a Part III trial via Zoom but refused to cooperate, provide her full name, or answer the court's questions, exhibiting behaviour reminiscent of OPCA litigants.

Despite multiple warnings, she continued her contemptuous conduct.

The court, finding direct contempt in the face of the court, issued an arrest warrant for Ms. McClintock pursuant to s. 91 of the Provincial Offences Act, adjourning the original trial sine die.

The court affirmed its common law and statutory authority to issue such a warrant for remote participants.

B.N., a 77-year-old first-time offender, was sentenced for sexual assault, sexual touching, invitation to sexual touching, and exposing his genitals to his 7-year-old granddaughter.

The offenses occurred over three consecutive nights while he was in a caregiving role.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence, citing R. v. Friesen for the need for increased sentences in child sexual abuse cases.

Despite B.N.'s age, poor health, and low risk of reoffending, the court found that only incarceration could adequately reflect the gravity of the offenses and the profound harm caused to the victim and her family.

A conditional sentence was deemed inappropriate.

The court imposed a total sentence of two years' incarceration, followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders including SOIRA registration and a weapons prohibition.

Mr. Flaro was convicted of 11 firearms-related offences, including possession of a loaded, restricted handgun.

He was found with multiple firearms in a detached garage, which he claimed were for protection against debt collectors.

The court considered sentencing principles, aggravating factors (illegal possession, loaded firearms, drug use, children nearby, school proximity, dissuading police call) and mitigating factors (pro-social upbringing, work history, family support, acceptance of responsibility, insight).

The judge determined the offences fell into the "true crime" spectrum, warranting a sentence in the 3-5 year range.

Due to an unusual situation regarding presentence custody and a conditional sentence order breach, which unintentionally disadvantaged the offender, the judge applied principles of totality and restraint to temper the sentence.

This criminal trial addressed charges of public mischief and uttering threats.

The accused, Todd Ansell, was alleged to have made a false complaint against his neighbour and subsequently threatened an arresting officer.

The court found the accused not guilty of public mischief, determining that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the initial complaint was false, given inconsistencies in dating and the accused's context for his "prank call" comment.

However, the court found the accused guilty of uttering threats, concluding that the threats made to the officer, despite being uttered while in custody and under stress, demonstrated the requisite mens rea of intending to intimidate or be taken seriously, particularly given the explicit statement about carrying out the threat later.