Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The accused, Deren Kenneth Akyeam-Pong, was found guilty on multiple charges following a trial, including possession of a stolen motor vehicle, possession of fentanyl and cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and various firearm-related offences, along with breaches of probation and release orders.

The court determined guilt based on circumstantial evidence, applying principles of constructive and joint possession, and found the defence's alternative inferences to be unreasonable speculation.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and 'over 80'.

The court found the defendant was the driver and impaired based on pre-arrest observations.

However, significant breaches of the defendant's Charter right to counsel (s. 10(b)) occurred at the police detachment, including insufficient explanation of counsel options, failure to address dissatisfaction with duty counsel, lack of a Prosper warning, and delayed facilitation of counsel access during breath testing.

Applying the Grant criteria, the court excluded the breathalyzer readings for the 'over 80' charge, resulting in an acquittal on that count.

The evidence for impaired care and control, obtained prior to the Charter breaches, was not excluded, leading to a conviction on that charge.

Claude Laporte appealed his conviction for failing to comply with an Order to Comply under the Building Code Act.

The appeal raised four grounds: misapprehension of evidence regarding his testimony, incorrect interpretation of "build" and "owner" under the Building Code Act, improper judicial interference by raising the principle of collateral attack, and an erroneous consideration of the defence of officially induced error.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no material misapprehension of evidence, confirming the applicability of the collateral attack principle to administrative orders, and rejecting the officially induced error defence.

This case, R. v. Atherton, 2023 ONCJ 3, is a placeholder entry where the full reasons for judgment are not yet available.

The record indicates the case was heard by the Ontario Court of Justice, with the judgment released on January 3, 2023.

No details regarding the facts, legal issues, or outcome are provided.

This case concerns a youth charged with aggravated assault, where the sole issue at trial was the identification of the accused.

The Crown relied on a witness who identified the accused based on prior acquaintance and observations during the unprovoked attack involving multiple assailants and weapons.

The court, while finding the witness truthful, determined that the objective facts, including the use of masks and limited familiarity, did not sufficiently prove the reliability of the identification beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.

Craig Harris-Lowe applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to a trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The court analyzed the total delay from charge to anticipated trial conclusion, deducting periods attributable to defence conduct and exceptional circumstances (COVID-19 pandemic).

The court found significant defence-caused delays, including repeated failures to schedule resolution meetings and attend court.

Despite the total delay exceeding the presumptive ceiling, the net delay, after deductions, fell below it.

The application for a stay was denied as the defence failed to demonstrate meaningful, sustained efforts to expedite proceedings or that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The offender was found guilty of unlawfully in a dwelling house and sexual assault.

The court considered sentencing submissions, including the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order (CSO).

The judge determined that a combination of real jail and a CSO was appropriate, imposing 90 days intermittent jail and a fine for the sexual assault, and a 10-month CSO followed by probation for the unlawfully in a dwelling house offence.

Ancillary orders were also imposed.

The accused, self-represented, brought a motion for a mistrial due to the Crown's failure to disclose the complainant's videotaped statement to the police.

The Crown conceded the breach of disclosure but argued it did not warrant a mistrial.

The court found that the accused failed to demonstrate that the non-disclosure impaired his ability to make full answer and defence or compromised the overall fairness of the trial, as the primary evidence against him was his own recorded statement, not the complainant's.

The motion for a mistrial was dismissed.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and fentanyl, and three counts of driving while disqualified.

The Crown sought 22 months less pre-trial custody credited at 1.5:1 and a lifetime driving prohibition.

The defence sought 17 months with 2:1 credit for pre-trial detention.

The court found that while most pre-trial detention conditions were not particularly harsh, the offender suffered two assaults resulting in bodily harm, warranting enhanced credit at 2:1 for 40 days.

The court sentenced the offender to 20 months on the driving offences (less 14 months pre-trial credit for 6 months remaining) with a 10-year driving prohibition, and 4 months consecutive on the drug offence followed by 2 years probation.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code for conduct that allegedly occurred on July 7, 2017, during a camping trip to Algonquin Park.

The Crown alleged that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant while she was sleeping in a tent.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming nothing of a sexual nature occurred while the complainant was sleeping.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, and rejected the accused's denials.

The judge was particularly influenced by the accused's text messages to the complainant's father, which demonstrated consciousness of guilt.

The judge found that the accused penetrated the complainant's vagina without consent while she was unconscious, constituting sexual assault.

The defendant was charged with care and control of an automobile while impaired and having a blood alcohol limit exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant's vehicle was found stuck in sand on the shoulder of a deserted road near Kleinberg.

The defendant was standing in a field approximately 50-60 feet from the vehicle, stating he was waiting for a ride.

The Crown sought to prove care and control based on circumstantial evidence and the defendant's proximity to the vehicle.

The court found that while the Crown established reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, it failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was in care and control of the motor vehicle at the time of police arrival.

The defendant was acquitted.

The defendant was charged with driving a commercial motor vehicle tractor-trailer combination on the Queen Elizabeth Way highway with the tractor in a dangerous or unsafe condition, contrary to s. 84(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from an inspection at a truck inspection station where an enforcement officer observed one missing fastener bolt and nut on the third axle front right wheel assembly, several loose washers, and an alleged 1/8 inch separation between the two wheels.

The defendant had undergone a defect-free inspection at the same station four days earlier and had conducted his own pre-trip inspection that morning.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence did not establish a prescribed critical defect under the applicable regulations, and expert witness testimony would have been required to establish that the observed defects rendered the vehicle dangerous or unsafe.

The accused was charged with Over 80 and brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged infringement of section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (right to trial within a reasonable time).

The Crown had stayed an Impaired Driving charge.

The trial was scheduled for March 29, 2017, with the charge arising from August 16, 2015.

The court applied the post-Jordan framework for analyzing delay and found that while the net delay of 15 months and 1 week exceeded what would have been considered reasonable under the previous Morin framework, it fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The court attributed approximately 4 months and 4 days to defence delay, primarily due to the defence's failure to conduct timely pre-trials despite having sufficient disclosure to proceed.

The motion was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraudulent activity carried out between July 1, 2012 and January 7, 2015, resulting in over $2.4 million in funds received.

The majority of monies were obtained through a large and sophisticated fraud involving the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program affecting over 900 victims, with additional funds obtained through cheque cashing fraud.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years less credit for pre-sentence custody, with a restitution order of $1.5 million.

The court found numerous aggravating factors including the accused's prior criminal record for fraud, the long duration of the fraud, the devastating impact on victims, and the damage to the integrity of the Canadian Temporary Foreign Worker Program.

The court rejected gambling addiction as a mitigating factor given the accused's minimal rehabilitation efforts.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with an approved screening device demand contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle contrary to section 249(1).

The Crown alleged the accused was operating a vehicle at excessive speeds (186 km/h in a 50 km/h zone), veering into oncoming traffic, and had alcohol in his system.

The accused was given 12 opportunities to provide a breath sample but failed to do so.

The trial judge found the Crown proved dangerous driving beyond a reasonable doubt but acquitted the accused on the failure to comply charge due to the absence of a final "last chance" warning and the possibility the accused requested one final opportunity to comply that was not documented or facilitated.

The accused was charged with theft, assault with a weapon, and possession of a knife for the purpose of committing a criminal offence in connection with a robbery at knifepoint of a York University student.

The victim could not identify his assailants.

The Crown's case relied on video evidence from a nearby apartment building, eyewitness testimony placing the accused at the scene, recognition evidence from a police officer, and physical evidence of clothing seized from the accused's home.

The trial judge found the Crown had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt through the convergence of video evidence, eyewitness testimony, recognition evidence, and physical evidence linking the accused to the robbery.

The reasons for judgment in this criminal matter are not available at this time.

The accused was convicted at trial of extortion contrary to s. 346(1.1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused attended the victim's home, left a phone number, and threatened the victim's wife, stating that if her husband did not call back they should "watch out." This initiated an escalating series of intimidation and threats designed to extort $54,000 from the victim.

The Crown sought a one-year custodial sentence.

The court appointed an amicus to assist the unrepresented accused in identifying mitigating factors and reviewing relevant sentencing precedents.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months in custody less credit for 79 days time served, followed by three years of probation with conditions including a prohibition on contact with the victim and a lifetime firearms prohibition order under s. 109 of the Criminal Code.

The accused were charged with assault causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and intimidation.

The Crown alleged that following a sexual encounter between the female accused and the complainant, the male accused lured the complainant to the home where he and an unidentified assailant attacked him, causing serious injuries including fractured ribs and a collapsed lung.

The defence sought to exclude evidence of flirting between the complainant and the female accused, and evidence that the female accused encouraged alcohol consumption, arguing such evidence relied on discriminatory stereotypes about women's sexual conduct.

The court admitted the evidence, finding it relevant to establishing motive and context while carefully distinguishing between proper and improper uses of such evidence.

The applicant was arrested for drinking and driving offences on April 24, 2011, with his trial scheduled for July 24, 2012—a delay of 15 months.

The applicant brought a Charter section 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings based on an alleged infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court dismissed the application, finding that after accounting for periods attributable to defence conduct, inherent time requirements, and institutional factors, the remaining delay of approximately eight months fell within the Morin guidelines for straightforward provincial court trials.

The applicant suffered minimal prejudice, and no violation of his Charter rights was established.