OCJ 2025

The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether the failure of a police officer to specify the exact model number of an approved screening device (ASD) used to test blood alcohol content undermined reasonable grounds for arrest.

The Court relied on precedent from R. v. Gundy to hold that the officer’s testimony that an approved device was used, absent credible contradictory evidence, suffices to establish reasonable grounds.

The Court also addressed whether the arrest was unlawful because it was made for impaired driving rather than excess blood alcohol, concluding the arrest was lawful given the totality of circumstances and the officer’s subjective belief.

Finally, the Court examined alleged breaches of the right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Charter, finding no breach where the accused was promptly given access to duty counsel despite some problematic comments by the breath technician.

The accused was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision addresses multiple motions concerning the temporary care and custody of children under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court considered the history of protection concerns involving parental alcohol misuse, domestic conflict, and the impact on the children.

The court applied the statutory test for temporary care and custody orders, emphasizing the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection.

The decision highlights the importance of supervised access, the risks of parental conflict exposure, and the detrimental effects of recording interactions involving children.

The court ordered D.D. placed temporarily with her father under supervision with structured access to her mother, and L.L. placed with maternal grandparents with structured access to her mother, reflecting differing risk assessments for each child.

This decision involves the dangerous offender designation and sentencing of Charles Waddling-Leeson following convictions for multiple violent and sexual offences.

The court found that Waddling-Leeson has a long history of violent and sexual offending, including serious personal injury offences, and has demonstrated a failure to control his sexual impulses.

Expert psychiatric evidence established a very high risk of future sexual and violent recidivism, with diagnoses including antisocial personality disorder and narcissistic traits.

Despite limited engagement with rehabilitative programming and treatment, the offender showed no meaningful insight or remorse.

The court concluded that Waddling-Leeson’s behaviour is intractable and that no lesser sentence than an indeterminate term of imprisonment would adequately protect the public.

Ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition, and lifelong compliance with the Sex Offender Registration Act were also imposed.

This decision addresses the acquittal of R.N., a young person charged with historical sexual offences alleged to have occurred between 1984 and 1987.

The court carefully analyzed the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused, applying the criminal standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the framework from R. v. W.(D.).

Despite finding both witnesses credible, the judge identified reliability concerns and ultimately found reasonable doubt regarding the accused’s guilt.

The decision highlights the challenges in assessing historical abuse allegations, especially when evidence is conflicting and dates uncertain.

This sentencing judgment concerns A.C., who pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference against his niece, K.J., under section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The offences occurred over several years, involving repeated sexual abuse of a minor family member.

The court considered the extensive harm to the victim and family, the offender's background, and relevant sentencing principles emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

The judge imposed a six-year concurrent sentence on each count, along with ancillary orders including DNA, long-term probation, and a lifetime SOIRA order.

This decision addresses an urgent motion concerning parenting time for a 10-month-old child amidst serious allegations of family violence and mental health concerns.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence, including affidavits, text messages, audio recordings, and medical reports, applying the best interests test under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The court emphasized the importance of an expansive approach to evidence in family law, especially in cases involving family violence, and ruled on the admissibility of contested evidence.

Ultimately, the court ordered supervised parenting time for the Father, citing concerns about his conduct, mental health, and the safety of the child and Mother, and declined to grant a without prejudice order.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted David Hunte-Green of committing an indecent act in a public place and breaching probation.

The accused was found to have masturbated under his clothes in a public elevator in front of a witness, Ms. Ginsberg, without exposing his genitals.

The court carefully analyzed whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused masturbated and whether such conduct constituted an indecent act under Canadian law.

Applying the Supreme Court of Canada's test for indecency from R. v. Labaye, the court found that the conduct caused harm to the victim's autonomy and safety, and was incompatible with the proper functioning of society, despite the absence of genital exposure.

The accused was also found guilty of breaching probation orders.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Suhail Alsendi to 12 months' imprisonment for trafficking cocaine, following his guilty plea to trafficking on October 12, 2023.

The court considered multiple trafficking incidents, the quantity and nature of the drug, possession of a replica firearm, and lack of insight as aggravating factors.

Mitigating factors included his first-time offender status, guilty plea, and family support.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing principles given the offender's high blameworthiness and the gravity of the offence.

Ancillary orders included a DNA order, forfeiture of seized items, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

This decision addresses the admissibility of evidence and the applicability of solicitor-client privilege in the context of a Gardiner hearing at sentencing for fraud.

The accused, Stephenie Chevis, pleaded guilty to fraud involving misappropriation of funds from a law firm's trust and general accounts.

The court considered whether evidence relating to certain transactions involving other clients of the law firm, potentially protected by solicitor-client privilege, could be admitted.

The judge analyzed the scope of privilege, distinguishing between protected communications and public legal instruments such as wills and mortgages once acted upon.

The court also considered the "innocence at stake" exception to privilege but found no need to pierce privilege at this stage, as the accused was not seeking to elicit privileged communications.

This decision addresses the charge of criminal harassment under section 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code, specifically focusing on whether the creation and content of a website by the accused, Mahyar Radmehr, constituted threatening conduct causing the complainant, Ms. K., to reasonably fear for her safety.

The Court found that while the website caused embarrassment, anxiety, and frustration to Ms. K., it was not designed as a tool of intimidation to instill fear.

The Crown failed to prove the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

The Court also declined to impose a common law peace bond requested by the Crown, finding no reasonable fear to justify such an order.

This sentencing decision addresses the possession of a stolen vehicle valued over $5,000 by Kamran Mughal, who pled guilty to one count amidst a broader investigation into vehicle trafficking.

The court carefully considered the joint submission for a conditional sentence of six months, balancing the seriousness of the offence, the offender’s lack of prior record, and his recent severe gunshot injuries.

The court declined to consider additional aggravating facts read into the record due to the defence’s successful application to exclude them.

The decision highlights the application of the Supreme Court of Canada’s guidance on joint submissions and sentencing principles, including proportionality, judicial restraint, and individualized sentencing.

The sentence imposed includes house arrest, curfew, GPS monitoring, and probation with conditions addressing substance abuse and avoidance of the offence location.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted 614128 Ontario Ltd. (operating as Trisan Construction) of failing to stop at a red-light as captured by a red-light camera system.

The prosecution relied on certified documents including a certificate of ownership linking the vehicle's number plate to the defendant, and a certificate of offence confirming the red-light camera system was functioning properly.

The defendant challenged the sufficiency of ownership evidence and the operation of the camera system, and argued the vehicle could have stopped before turning right.

The Court found the certified evidence credible and reliable, rejected the defence's circumstantial evidence argument, and held the prosecution proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Christa Hier pleaded guilty to possession of 118 grams of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking under section 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Ontario Court of Justice imposed a sentence balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, resulting in a total sentence of six and a half years: 12 months credited as served with 18 months credit, plus five years custody.

The decision highlights the significant community impact of fentanyl trafficking in Pembroke, the offender’s history of addiction and trauma, and the importance of individualized sentencing that considers both public safety and rehabilitative potential.

Gregory Dale Walton, a declared Dangerous Offender (DO) serving a 10-year Long-Term Supervision Order (LTSO), pled guilty to breaching his LTSO by consuming illicit drugs.

The court considered the appropriate sentence length, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation principles, particularly in light of Mr. Walton's substance addiction and prior breaches.

The judge enhanced pre-sentence custody credit to reflect harsh lockdown conditions and lack of access to rehabilitative programs, ultimately imposing an 18-month sentence with credit for time served.

This decision addresses the issue of costs between parents in a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The father, J.N., sought partial indemnity costs from the mother, J.M., arguing that he was successful and that J.M. acted unreasonably and prolonged the matter.

The court reviewed the high threshold required for awarding costs between parents in protection cases, emphasizing that costs should only be awarded for extreme unreasonable conduct or bad faith.

The court found that although J.M. initially resisted conceding primary residence, she acted reasonably in later efforts to resolve the matter, and no findings of fact or breach of court orders were made against her.

The protection application was withdrawn on consent, and the court declined to order costs, highlighting the importance of good faith and proportionality in such proceedings.

This decision addresses the validity of a roadside demand for a breath sample under section 320.27(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Andrew Ackers, was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample and impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The impaired driving charge was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.

The key issue was whether the police had reasonable suspicion to demand a breath sample.

The court found that despite some procedural missteps and lack of direct communication of all grounds between officers, the totality of objectively discernable facts—including the vehicle accident, the accused fleeing the scene, witness reports of intoxication, and the accused’s glossy eyes—constituted reasonable suspicion.

The accused was found guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion to strike pleadings based on a respondent father's breach of a prior final order regarding child support payments and income disclosure.

The court found the father had breached the order but declined to strike his pleadings, instead ordering disclosure within 90 days and precluding relief related to child support until compliance.

Both parties sought costs, but the court found success was divided and both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant case law, the court denied costs to both parties, emphasizing shared responsibility for the unnecessary motion.