Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable period of time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charges were laid in December 2016 with trial set for December 2018, resulting in a total delay of 24 months.

Applying the framework established in R. v. Jordan, the court calculated net delay of 19 months after deducting five months of defence delay, exceeding the presumptive 18-month ceiling.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness.

The primary cause of delay was the Crown's failure to make timely disclosure of email communications.

Although the Crown made commendable efforts to mitigate the delay once the disclosure deficiency became apparent, the Jordan framework provided no relief.

The application for a stay was granted.

The appellant appealed a conviction for careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

The court found multiple procedural errors at trial, including the denial of an adjournment request when new evidence (photographs) was disclosed, failure to conduct a proper W.(D.) analysis, and improper restriction of cross-examination.

The court noted that the accused's exculpatory statement regarding snow and ice conditions was introduced by the Crown but not properly addressed by the trial justice.

The parties subsequently agreed to a substituted guilty plea to the lesser offence of failing to turn to the left to avoid a collision under section 148(5) of the Highway Traffic Act, with a fine of $50 imposed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving following a sobriety checkpoint stop on February 14, 2017.

The defendant challenged the timing of the stop, the administration of the breath demand, and the timing of the breath tests relative to the two-hour statutory requirement.

The defendant testified that he was stopped at 2:15 pm and waited 15 minutes in line, placing the first breath test outside the two-hour window.

The officer testified that the stop occurred at 3:08 pm, placing the first test within the statutory timeframe.

The court found the defendant's evidence unreliable and untrustworthy, particularly regarding his claim of consuming only two beers when his blood alcohol content was almost twice the legal limit.

The court rejected all of the defendant's challenges and found him guilty as charged.

The Crown charged two members of the Men's Fire, a group within the Six Nations community, with assault for forcibly removing a lawyer from a meeting at the Haudenosaunee Development Institute offices.

The defendants claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code, arguing they were acting pursuant to traditional Haudenosaunee governance to remove the complainant from reserve territory.

The court found that while the defendants had a subjective belief they were acting in accordance with traditional governance, the defence of property did not apply because: (1) the defendants did not have peaceable possession of the property given the political conflict; (2) the complainant had a lawful entitlement to be present as an invitee of the HDI; and (3) the use of force was unreasonable in the circumstances, as there was no emergency, alternative remedies were available, and the action was politically motivated rather than necessary for community protection.

Both defendants were convicted of assault.

The accused brought a pre-trial motion seeking a stay of proceedings for an alleged violation of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, which sets presumptive ceilings of 18 months for provincial court trials.

After deducting five months of defence delay attributable to the accused's failure to diligently pursue disclosure and meet with Crown counsel, the net delay was 14.3 months, well below the ceiling.

The court found the accused had not demonstrated meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and dismissed the application.

The accused was charged with dangerous driving contrary to section 249(2) of the Criminal Code following a motor vehicle accident at the intersection of Oxford Street and Veterans Memorial Parkway in London, Ontario.

The Crown alleged the accused was racing another vehicle at speeds exceeding 150 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometre per hour zone, resulting in a collision with an innocent third party.

The accused claimed she was fleeing an aggressive pursuer.

The court found the accused was operating the trailing vehicle in a race, rejected her evidence as tailored and illogical, and convicted her based on the credible testimony of three independent witnesses who consistently described dangerous high-speed driving.

The accused, an anti-abortion activist, was charged with disobeying a court order pursuant to section 127(1) of the Criminal Code.

The charge arose from her conduct on September 2, 2015, when she protested outside the Morgentaler Clinic in Toronto carrying a sign and speaking to patients entering the clinic, attempting to persuade them not to have abortions.

The court found that her conduct breached paragraphs (c) and (h) of a 1999 injunction by disturbing and interrupting the functioning of the clinic and causing a nuisance within 500 feet of the premises.

The court distinguished the present case from a prior 2014 appeal decision where similar conduct had resulted in acquittal, finding that the evidence of disruption to clinic operations and impact on patients and staff was substantially different and more compelling.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample following a single-vehicle collision on Highway 410.

The Crown alleged the accused was impaired by alcohol based on observations of slurred speech, unsteadiness, and odour of alcohol.

The defence argued the accused's symptoms were caused by shock or head injury from the severe collision impact.

The court found that while the Crown's case was circumstantial and the accused's symptoms were consistent with both impairment and trauma, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was impaired by alcohol rather than suffering from the effects of the collision.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

The accused was tried on ten counts of domestic violence offences spanning from 2001 to 2013, including assault, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, and mischief.

The Crown alleged a pattern of serious domestic violence against the complainant over the course of their dysfunctional relationship.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming he only responded defensively when the complainant attacked him.

The trial judge found credibility issues with the complainant's testimony, noting inconsistencies between her account and corroborating witness evidence, as well as the absence of injuries that would reasonably be expected from the alleged assaults.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

Appellants were convicted of two counts of hindering or obstructing a provincial offences officer contrary to section 42(1) of the Nutrient Management Act.

The appellants parked their truck directly in front of Ministry of the Environment inspectors' truck, blocking its exit, and refused multiple requests to move.

The appellants appealed their convictions arguing the actus reus was not proven and that they exercised due diligence.

The court dismissed both grounds of appeal, finding that the appellants' actions constituted obstruction and that they failed to establish a due diligence defence, as their belief that the officers were trespassing was based on a mistake of law and was not reasonably held in the circumstances.

The accused was charged with impaired care and control and care and control over 80 after being found asleep in a running motor vehicle.

The Crown conceded care and control.

The trial judge found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) Charter right to retain and instruct counsel of choice when the arresting officer failed to facilitate the accused's apparent request to contact someone, instead only offering duty counsel.

The trial judge also found that the Crown failed to establish that breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, with unexplained delays totalling over 25 minutes.

The evidence of impairment was found to be weak, with the accused appearing coherent and steady once fully awake.

The accused was acquitted on both counts.

An appeal from a conviction for stunt driving under section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant was charged after being clocked at 149 km/h in an 80 km/h zone on a motorcycle.

The appeal raised three grounds: failure to notify the appellant of trial date, that manufacturer's testing procedures for the radar device were mandatory, and that the investigating officer lacked proper training.

The trial Justice of the Peace found the officer credible and determined that manufacturer's recommendations were not mandatory requirements but rather a checklist for ensuring accuracy and reliability.

The appeal court upheld the conviction, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact and no error in law.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code and sexual interference with a young person under 16 years contrary to section 151 of the Criminal Code.

The alleged offences occurred on June 6, 2011, in Milton, Ontario.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, her sister, the accused's girlfriend at the time, and the accused himself.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and consistent, while rejecting the testimony of the defence witnesses as unreliable and self-serving.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts and registered a stay on one count pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired, driving with a blood alcohol concentration over .80, failing to stop for police, and resisting arrest.

The accused sought a stay of proceedings based on allegations of excessive force used by police during arrest, claiming violations of sections 7, 8, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's section 7 rights were breached through the unnecessary and unreasonable use of force in extracting him from his vehicle, resulting in significant physical and psychological injuries.

The court excluded all breath test evidence as a remedy to disassociate the justice system from the unlawful conduct.

The accused was convicted of impaired driving and sentenced to a conditional discharge with conditions including completion of a driver rehabilitation program and a prohibition on driving with any alcohol in his system.

The accused was charged with threatening to kill the complainant on December 14, 2012.

The trial took place in Toronto's Integrated Domestic Violence Court.

The complainant and accused had a former romantic relationship and were engaged in a contentious family court proceeding regarding custody and access to their child.

The complainant alleged that the accused threatened to kill her, that she would explode like a balloon, that he would break her, and that he sent a threatening email.

The court found the complainant's credibility was substantially damaged by her prior false affidavit recanting allegations of assault, the suspicious timing of her allegations coinciding with an unfavorable custody recommendation, and her demonstrated determination to obtain sole custody.

The court found the accused not guilty, holding that the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought to establish sufficient evidence to commit four accused persons to trial for armed home invasion robbery, kidnapping with intent to hold for ransom, and related offences.

The evidence included direct testimony from the complainant, extensive video surveillance from the complainant's home security system, CTV news helicopter footage of the police takedown, and mall security video.

The court found sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed trier of fact could reasonably find guilt on charges of armed robbery, kidnapping with use of firearms, masked commission of indictable offences, and escape from lawful custody.

All four accused were committed to stand trial in Superior Court before a judge and jury.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of the legal limit.

The Crown proceeded only on the impaired driving charge.

The trial involved a preliminary voir-dire regarding the qualifications of an unaccredited Korean interpreter, which the court found to be necessary to ensure the defendant's Charter rights were protected.

Following the interpreter qualification hearing, the Crown called four police officers to establish impairment.

The court found that while the evidence established reasonable grounds to believe impairment and made it more likely than not that impairment occurred, the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt due to the ambiguity of certain indicia.

The defendant was acquitted on the impaired driving count.

Two offenders pleaded guilty to accepting and offering secret commissions (bribes) in relation to driving examinations at a DriveTest Centre in Oakville, Ontario.

The driving examiner accepted bribes from a driving school instructor to ensure that the instructor's students passed their Ministry of Transportation road examinations.

The scheme involved five prior corrupt transactions before discovery.

The court imposed custodial sentences, finding that the breach of public trust and risk to public safety necessitated imprisonment rather than conditional sentences, despite the offenders' lack of prior criminal records and expressions of remorse.

The accused pleaded guilty to distributing child pornography and luring a child by means of a computer system.

The court considered whether to order a full Gladue report to assist in sentencing an Aboriginal offender.

The court held that while a full Gladue report is not absolutely required, the sentencing judge must have sufficient materials before it to meet the requirement of special attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the pre-sentence report with Gladue content, combined with evidence from probation services and anticipated submissions from community elders and family, provided sufficient information to proceed to sentencing.

The accused was charged with attempted robbery of OxyContin tablets contrary to section 344(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on evidence that the accused possessed a holdup note demanding 80 mg OxyContin tablets, was observed loitering in the pharmacy area of a Shoppers Drug Mart, and allegedly displayed a knife.

The trial judge found that the accused did not possess a knife, rejected the theory that he was associated with another individual in the store, and determined that while the accused may have once contemplated robbing a drug store, there remained a reasonable doubt as to whether he intended to rob this particular store on this particular date.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty, holding that the Crown had not proven the necessary mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt.