Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The accused was found in the driver's seat of a heavily damaged vehicle outside a school.

Police questioned him in an ambulance without advising him of his detention or rights, and failed to address clear language barriers when providing access to counsel.

The court found significant breaches of ss. 10(a) and 10(b) of the Charter and excluded the breath test results and statements under s. 24(2).

However, based on the totality of the remaining evidence, including the unexplained collision, odour of alcohol, empty beer can, and the accused's confusion and physical state, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation of a conveyance.

Sentencing for sexual interference of one child complainant resulting in pregnancy, and for receiving material benefit from the trafficking of another child complainant in the sex trade, together with robbery and breach of a release order.

The court applied the proportionality principle, the child-sex-offence sentencing guidance in Friesen, the totality principle, and Summers pre-sentence custody credit, while also treating exceptionally punitive remand conditions as mitigating.

Significant aggravating factors included the victims' ages, the offender's degree of control, internet advertising of sexually exploitative images, pregnancy, repeated breach of a no-contact order, and serious emotional harm to the complainants and one complainant's family.

The court imposed a global 10-year penitentiary sentence less 608 days' credit, plus ancillary DNA, SOIRA, firearm prohibition, no-contact, s. 161, and forfeiture orders.

The accused was charged with assault arising from an incident in which he pushed the property owner (his landlord) out of his rental unit.

The landlord attended the property with plumbers to investigate a water leak.

The accused claimed the defence of property under section 35 of the Criminal Code.

While the court found that the accused had peaceable possession of the property and acted with a defensive purpose, it concluded that the force used was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The threat posed by the landlord was negligible, and the accused should have attempted verbal communication before resorting to physical force.

The court found the accused guilty of assault.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three charges: threatening a corrections officer, assault with a weapon against his domestic partner, and breach of a bail order not to possess weapons.

The Crown sought seven months custody plus three years probation.

The defendant sought ninety days intermittent custody plus probation.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation and ancillary orders, crediting fifty-four real days of pre-sentence custody as equivalent to eighty-one days.

The judgment reflects extensive consideration of the defendant's traumatic background, mental health issues, and systemic failures in the criminal justice system, while acknowledging the seriousness of the offences and the defendant's extensive criminal record.

Jamie Gibson applied to strike his guilty plea to one count of possessing child pornography, arguing it was not informed or voluntary, made on the spur of the moment, and under pressure from former counsel.

The court found his evidence inconsistent and untruthful regarding the voluntariness and timing of the plea.

The court accepted the evidence of his former counsel, Ms. Bracken, and found that the plea was valid, voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, meeting the requirements of section 606(1.1) of the Criminal Code.

The application to strike the guilty plea was dismissed.

The Crown charged the defendant with assault causing bodily harm, possession of a firearm and ammunition, possession of controlled substances, and failure to comply with release conditions.

The Crown's case relied on DNA evidence linking the defendant to items found in a vehicle that fled the scene of a stabbing at a bar.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove all counts beyond a reasonable doubt.

The evidence regarding the assault was insufficient as the knife blade and handle were not properly linked to the incident, and there was no evidence connecting the victim identified through DNA to the person assisted by the bar owner.

The possession counts failed because DNA evidence alone, showing the defendant's profile among multiple contributors on items, could not establish possession on the date alleged.

No evidence was presented on the failure to comply counts.

All charges were dismissed.

A preliminary inquiry into a robbery charge where the sole issue was identification.

The Crown sought to rely on surveillance video from the robbery, a dated mug shot, and Facebook photos to establish identification of the defendant.

The court applied the test from R. v. Nikolovski and found that the identification evidence was insufficient.

The surveillance video was of poor quality with only generic facial features visible, and the Facebook photos lacked proper foundation and evidentiary connection to the defendant.

The court discharged the defendant, finding that no reasonable jury properly instructed could convict on the identification evidence presented.

The accused was convicted after trial of assault, sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and threatening death arising from a violent incident with his former common law partner.

The Crown sought a maximum reformatory sentence with ancillary orders.

The defence sought an intermittent sentence on the sexual assault count and a conditional sentence on the remaining counts.

The court imposed consecutive sentences totalling 16 months in a provincial reformatory, followed by three years of probation, while considering Gladue principles applicable to the Indigenous accused and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The court ruled on whether a complainant implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by testifying in cross-examination that she had sought legal advice from her lawyers before giving media interviews while subject to a witness exclusion order.

The court held that the complainant did not implicitly waive her privilege.

The court applied a principled approach considering the fundamental nature of solicitor-client privilege, the requirement of voluntary action by the privilege holder, and the significance of the evidence arising during compelled cross-examination.

The court concluded that fairness and consistency did not require waiver in these circumstances.

The applicant sought an extension of time to pay a $200 victim fine surcharge imposed for an assault offence.

The court struck out the victim fine surcharge, finding that the enabling legislation had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Boudreault.

The court held that no victim fine surcharges could be collected in the future and that all such fines paid in the past must be refunded.

The applicant's $5 payment was ordered to be refunded.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings on a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample, arguing a breach of his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

Although the total net delay, including retrial time, exceeded the Jordan presumptive ceiling of 18 months, the court found the transitional exceptional circumstance applied.

The parties had relied on the prior Morin framework when the case was proceeding, and the operative delay under Morin guidelines, while exceeding them slightly, was not so egregious as to warrant a stay.

The application was dismissed and the case proceeded to trial.

The offender was convicted after trial of robbery of a gas bar.

He entered the store, approached the cashier with his hand in his pocket as if he had a gun, and demanded money.

He obtained over $100 and left.

There was no actual weapon, no violence, and no physical injury to the victim, though the victim was anxious.

The offender is 44 years old, employed as a journeyman refrigeration and air conditioning mechanic, and has a dated criminal record from 2007-2008.

He has a significant alcohol addiction that motivated the offence, which occurred during a three-day drinking bender.

He has a 13-year-old son whom he supports and sees on weekends.

The Crown sought one year incarceration followed by probation; the defence sought 90 days served on weekends followed by probation.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and "Over 80" following a traffic stop.

The defendant brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of breath samples obtained in violation of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The investigating officer failed to communicate an approved screening device demand "forthwith" upon formation of reasonable suspicion, delaying approximately two minutes.

Additionally, the officer failed to provide rights to counsel while awaiting delivery of the ASD, despite believing the delay could be 15-20 minutes.

The court found both breaches established on a balance of probabilities.

Under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court excluded the evidence, emphasizing that the breaches resulted from deficient training of the investigating officer that was not corrected by the training officer present at the scene.

The defendant was acquitted.

A voir dire concerning the lawfulness of an arrest and subsequent searches.

The accused was arrested on the 401 highway based on information from a Toronto drug investigation targeting a different individual.

The Crown sought to uphold a warrantless strip search and vehicle search as incidental to arrest.

The court found that police lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, rendering the searches unlawful.

The court also found that the deliberate denial of the accused's right to counsel for 9.5 hours constituted a Charter breach.

Evidence was excluded under section 24(2).

The accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences following the discovery of two unregistered revolvers in a garbage area outside his former residence.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence and statements made by the accused to police.

The court found multiple Charter breaches: a section 10(b) violation when the accused was psychologically detained and questioned without being advised of his right to counsel, and section 8 violations relating to an unjustified strip search conducted without proper grounds and not in private.

The court excluded the accused's statements as a remedy under section 24(2) of the Charter.

On the merits, the court found that the Crown failed to prove possession of the firearms beyond a reasonable doubt, both without the excluded statements and, alternatively, on the basis that the accused's complete forgetfulness about the firearms negated the required mens rea for constructive possession on the date in question.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

A self-represented litigant brought a private complaint alleging that the president and counsel of the Real Estate Council of Ontario committed obstruction of justice, fabrication of evidence, and criminal harassment between June 2004 and June 2012.

The complaint arose from a discipline proceeding that resulted in the revocation of the applicant's real estate licence.

The pre-enquete hearing was held over multiple dates spanning nearly two years.

The court found that no prima facie case had been established against either respondent on any of the alleged offences.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with failing to provide a suitable sample of breath into an approved screening device (ASD) pursuant to a demand under section 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the accused intentionally failed to provide a suitable sample after eight attempts, each resulting in an E0 message.

The defence argued the accused lacked mens rea, having genuinely attempted to provide a sample but been unable to do so due to various factors including emotional distress, interference from her boyfriend's confrontation with police, and the officer's premature withdrawal of the device.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the intentionality of the failure and also found the Crown failed to establish that the ASD demand complied with section 254(2) requirements.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

At trial, the accused challenged the reliability of the breath test results, arguing that the Intoxilyzer 5000C had not undergone its recommended annual maintenance for over 13 months.

The court applied the Supreme Court's decision in St. Onge-Lamoureux, finding that 'improper operation' under s. 258(1)(c) of the Criminal Code includes improper maintenance.

The failure to perform the annual maintenance rebutted the presumption of accuracy of the breath test results.

Without reliable breath test results, the Crown could not prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court determined whether two accused had committed offences related to possession and storage of a firearm and ammunition found during a police response to a break and enter in progress.

The accused Robinson was the former tenant of the apartment who had been evicted that morning.

The accused Williams was not present at the scene.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit Robinson to trial on charges of unlawfully being in a dwelling and possession of the firearm and ammunition, but discharged Williams on all counts due to insufficient evidence of knowledge or control.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, and sought exclusion of evidence under section 24(2).

The central issue was whether the police provided the accused with a reasonable opportunity to consult with his counsel of choice.

The court found that the officer told the accused the breath samples would be taken regardless of whether his chosen lawyer called back, and that the accused had no choice but to speak to duty counsel.

The court found this constituted a serious breach of section 10(b) of the Charter and excluded the blood-alcohol readings, resulting in an acquittal.