OCJ 2025

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the Crown's application for an assessment of criminal responsibility regarding Deeva John, who had entered guilty pleas to multiple assault-related charges.

The court found that although Ms. John suffers from Cluster B personality disorder traits, there were no reasonable grounds to doubt her capacity under section 16 of the Criminal Code to appreciate the nature and quality of her conduct or to know that it was wrong at the time of the offences.

The decision emphasized that the Crown failed to establish the lower threshold of "reasonable grounds to doubt" criminal responsibility due to mental disorder, as the evidence showed Ms. John’s conduct was purposeful and responsive to her environment rather than indicative of incapacity.

This decision addresses sentencing following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for a tragic workplace drowning incident at New Leaf: Living and Learning Together Inc. The court found both the corporation and an individual supervisor, Colin Lang, guilty of multiple counts of failing to take reasonable precautions to protect worker safety.

The judgment carefully balances aggravating factors such as the death of a worker and recklessness, with mitigating factors including the defendants' community contributions and financial circumstances.

The court imposed substantial fines on New Leaf, mindful of its critical role and financial constraints, and a significant fine on Mr. Lang without incarceration, emphasizing proportionality and deterrence in OHSA sentencing.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered the lawfulness of a second Approved Screening Device (ASD) test conducted on Paul J. Foran after his initial roadside test failed.

The court examined whether the second test was lawful under sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter, focusing on whether a new demand was required and whether the second test breached the accused's right to counsel.

The court found the second test was lawful, conducted for the accused's benefit to ensure accuracy, and that no breach of the right to counsel or lawful demand occurred.

The court also rejected the claim that police improperly steered the accused to duty counsel, finding the accused chose duty counsel voluntarily.

The charge of impaired driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Khalila Mohammed for being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter under s. 463(a) of the Criminal Code.

The court considered her youth, lack of prior record, remorse, and cooperation with authorities, alongside the serious nature of the offence and her active role in assisting the principal offender post-shooting.

After reviewing relevant case law and sentencing principles, the judge imposed a conditional sentence of 529 days, including house arrest and community service, emphasizing rehabilitation and restraint while ensuring denunciation and deterrence.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the Crown's application for a mental health assessment under s. 16 of the Criminal Code for Lynda Newth, who pled guilty to assault and related offences.

Despite a history of mental health struggles and serious prior assaults, the court found no reasonable grounds to doubt her criminal responsibility at the time of the November 5, 2024 assault.

The decision emphasized the high threshold for ordering such assessments, the importance of evidence linking mental disorder to the offence, and the need for vigilance in cases involving Indigenous accused to avoid unfair disadvantage.

Sean Done was convicted of accessing child pornography contrary to s. 163.1(4.1) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing decision addresses the protracted procedural history, including Charter applications, and extensive evidentiary record including psychological and psychiatric assessments diagnosing pedophilia limited to internet offending.

The court emphasized the equivalence of accessing and possessing child sexual abuse material (CSAM), the aggravating factors such as the large quantity and nature of the material, sharing and trading of CSAM, and counselling others to avoid detection.

Mitigating factors included Mr. Done’s lack of prior record, engagement in therapy, and supportive family.

The court imposed a 22-month custodial sentence (after a 4-month reduction for Charter breaches), followed by two years probation with strict conditions, and ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA registration for 20 years, forfeiture of the cellphone, and waiver of victim fine surcharge.

This decision addresses the application of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms concerning the police's receipt and use of an IP address linked to child sexual abuse material (CSAM).

The court distinguishes the passive receipt of an IP address from a third-party American organization (NCMEC) from an active police request, finding no breach of section 8 rights.

The decision emphasizes the legislative framework governing mandatory reporting by Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Canada and the U.S., which reduces the reasonable expectation of privacy in IP addresses used to access or distribute CSAM.

The court also finds that police steps to confirm ISP and location information without prior judicial authorization did not violate section 8.

Even if a breach occurred, the evidence would not be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter due to the seriousness of the offence and limited impact of the breach.

This decision addresses a stunt driving charge under subsection 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, focusing on the reliability of radar speed readings and the credibility of evidence from both the police officer and the accused.

The court applied the three-part test from R. v S. (W.D.) to assess credibility and reasonable doubt.

The officer's evidence regarding radar speed readings was found inconsistent and unreliable, particularly due to the deletion of elevated speed readings when switching radar modes and lack of corroborating visual observations.

The accused's evidence about operating a vehicle with a built-in radar detector and dash camera recordings was accepted as credible.

The prosecution failed to prove the essential element of elevated speed beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.

The Ontario Court of Justice allowed the City of Toronto's appeal of judicial stays of proceedings against Henry Shein Canada and Lisa Lee-Tucker for red light camera infractions.

The stays were originally granted due to violations of s. 11(b) of the Charter (right to a trial within a reasonable time) and common law abuse of process because the cases exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Court found that the trial judge erred by initiating the stays sua sponte without proper notice to the prosecution, violating the procedural requirements under s. 109 of the Courts of Justice Act.

The decision clarifies that stays for delay under s. 11(b) require notice and that trial judges must exercise caution when bringing motions on their own initiative, especially in unrepresented accused cases under the Provincial Offences Act.

This decision addresses the voluntariness of a statement made by the defendant, G.C., to police following his arrest for dangerous operation causing death related to a motor vehicle collision.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence from police officers and the circumstances surrounding the statement, including the delay in custody, the timing of informing the defendant of the fatality, and the failure to advise him of his imminent release.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada principles on voluntariness and credibility, the judge found a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant's statement was made with free will, rendering it inadmissible at trial.

This decision addresses a Charter application concerning a 95-minute delay in implementing Mr. Mohamed’s s. 10(b) right to counsel following his arrest for impaired driving and related firearms offences.

The court found a breach of the right to counsel due to the delay, primarily caused by the arresting officer’s failure to arrange alternative transport to the station.

However, the evidence of the firearm, ammunition, and breath samples was admitted under s. 24(2) of the Charter after a balancing of factors, given the minor impact on the accused’s rights and the strong public interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The court acquitted Mr. Mohamed on the firearms-related charges due to insufficient evidence linking him to the firearm but convicted him on impaired driving and over-80 charges based on reliable breathalyzer evidence.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a motion seeking disclosure of Batchewana First Nation band representative records related to a child custody dispute involving the maternal great-grandparents and the child's parents and paternal grandparents.

The court found that the First Nation and its band representative are not mandated or trained to assess child protection risks and do not hold investigatory powers akin to child welfare agencies.

The records sought were deemed irrelevant to the family law proceeding, which is distinct from a child protection case.

The court emphasized that the child protection agency, Nogdawindamin Family and Community Services, is the appropriate body tasked with assessing risk and providing relevant records, which were ordered produced by consent.

This decision addresses the sentencing of Kaitlyn Braun, who committed multiple offences involving deception of doulas by falsely claiming pregnancy and sexual assault, resulting in emotional and financial harm to victims.

After an initial conditional sentence order (CSO) was breached by new offences, the court considered a joint submission to terminate the CSO and impose a consecutive global three-year jail sentence.

The court carefully applied the public interest test for joint submissions, balancing the offender’s diagnosed mental health issues, the gravity and nature of the offences, and the impact on victims.

The decision highlights the court’s discretion in handling breaches of CSOs and the importance of structured treatment programs like Dialectical Behaviour Therapy (DBT) in sentencing.

This decision addresses a motion to strike pleadings under Rule 1(8) of the Family Law Rules due to the respondent father's failure to comply with a prior child support order, specifically non-payment and failure to provide required income disclosure.

The court confirms the father's breach of the Final Order but declines to strike pleadings, emphasizing the importance of proportionality, the timing of the mother's motion, and the best interests of the child.

Instead, the court orders the father to provide outstanding financial documents within 90 days and precludes him from obtaining child support relief until compliance.

The decision highlights the court's discretion in sanctioning non-compliance and balancing procedural fairness with substantive justice in family law matters.

Hesham Mahbub pleaded guilty to multiple offences including child luring, sexual assault, invitation to sexual touching, uttering a death threat, and breaching a release order.

The offences involved three girls under 16 years old, with aggravating factors such as arranged meetings, persistence despite refusal, and violation of bail conditions.

The court imposed a global sentence of 5 years and 3 months, balancing the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation.

The decision includes detailed sentencing analysis referencing recent appellate and Supreme Court jurisprudence on child luring and sexual offences against children, and imposes ancillary orders including a 20-year SOIRA reporting order and a 10-year s.161 order restricting access to children.

The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Mario Takov of impaired driving charges under s. 320.14 of the Criminal Code.

The case centered on the interpretation and application of the "evaluation" conducted by a certified Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) under s. 320.28(2)(a).

The judge undertook a detailed statutory interpretation, concluding that the "evaluation" mandated by the Criminal Code is the 12-Step Drug Influence Evaluation (12-Step DIE) as defined by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The court found significant reliability issues with the Evaluating Officer's administration of the 12-Step DIE, including deviations from standardized procedures and an opinion inconsistent with the expected indicators for impairment by a CNS stimulant.

The Crown failed to prove the required facts to trigger the presumptions under s. 320.31(6), and the evidence did not establish impairment by alcohol or drugs beyond a reasonable doubt.

This decision addresses the City of Brampton's application under s. 51 of the Provincial Offences Act to compel personal attendance of defendants represented by certain paralegals and firms accused of filing frivolous and meritless appeals to delay convictions from appearing on driving records.

The court initially ordered personal appearances to conduct proper plea inquiries but reconsidered this order, allowing statutory declarations under s. 43 of the Evidence Act in lieu of personal attendance.

The ruling extensively discusses the abuse of process and obstruction of justice doctrines, referencing prior cases including Toronto (City) v. Becerra, and highlights the ethical obligations of paralegals under the Law Society of Ontario's Rules of Conduct.

The decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and preventing misuse of appeals to "game the system."

This decision addresses a costs endorsement following parenting motions concerning a 6-year-old child.

The mother was successful and sought costs of $13,526.

The father, initially represented by counsel but later acting in person, did not file costs submissions.

The court reviewed general principles of costs under the Family Law Rules, including reasonableness, proportionality, and conduct of the parties.

The father breached court orders by overholding the child and attending the child's school contrary to the order.

The court fixed costs at $7,500 payable monthly by the father, considering his modest means and ongoing child support obligations.