Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The defendant was charged with three offences arising from a street robbery on July 7, 2017: having his face masked with intent to commit an indictable offence, assault causing bodily harm, and theft.

The complainant, a 70-year-old woman, was robbed of $500 withdrawn from her bank.

She identified the defendant as her assailant based on recognition during the incident when his face covering slipped.

The defendant denied involvement and claimed an alibi.

The court found the complainant's identification evidence credible and reliable, rejected the defendant's alibi as inconsistent with police records, and convicted on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with possessing child pornography found on three devices: a desktop computer, an iPad, and a laptop computer, all seized on March 11, 2015.

A total of 1,288 images and 196 videos constituting child pornography were located across the devices.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence and the assertion that the defendant was the only person with access to the devices.

The trial judge found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the child pornography, as multiple other individuals had access to the devices and the investigating officer failed to investigate alternative suspects.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with possession of heroin for the purpose of trafficking following a traffic stop of a vehicle flagged in the CPIC system as a re-vinned crime vehicle.

The court found multiple Charter violations: a breach of section 10(b) rights to counsel when the accused made incriminating statements about marijuana without being advised of his rights, and a breach of section 8 rights against unreasonable search when police searched the accused's pockets and subsequently the vehicle without lawful authority.

The court excluded the heroin evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that the seriousness of the breaches and the impact on the accused's rights outweighed society's interest in adjudication on the merits.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault following a two-day trial.

The assault involved digital penetration of the victim while she was asleep, without consent.

The offender and victim had a long-standing platonic friendship spanning over 13 years.

The Crown sought a nine-month jail sentence followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including six months of house arrest with electronic monitoring, followed by a curfew, 150 hours of community service, counselling, and a two-year probation order.

A 10-year SOIRA order and DNA order were also imposed.

The accused was charged with being in care and control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80mg per 100ml of blood.

The accused was found asleep in his vehicle with the engine running in a parking lot at Exhibition Place.

The Crown alleged the accused was in care and control; the accused argued he had no intention to drive and was waiting for a friend to pick him up.

The court found no breach of Charter rights regarding the arrest and breath demand.

On the care and control issue, the court found the accused successfully rebutted the presumption of intention to drive and that there was no realistic risk of danger in the particular circumstances, resulting in an acquittal.

The defendant was charged with exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood (exceed 80) following a roadside sobriety check.

A police officer observed the defendant exiting a bar at 2:39 am, conducted an approved screening device (ASD) test at 2:49 am after the defendant reported consuming a shot of tequila at approximately 2:35 am, and obtained a "Fail" result.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the ASD result on two grounds: (1) violation of the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter by failing to facilitate contact with counsel at the roadside, and (2) potential unreliability of the ASD test due to insufficient waiting time to account for mouth alcohol contamination.

The court found no violation of the right to counsel and, assuming arguendo a potential breach regarding the mouth alcohol protocol, concluded that the evidence should be admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol.

The Crown's case relied on observations from truck stop employees who reported a suspected impaired driver, police observations of the accused's vehicle and physical condition, and breath analysis results.

The defence challenged the reliability of the approved screening device test on Charter grounds, arguing the officer failed to consider the possibility of mouth alcohol contamination.

The court found no Charter breach, as the officer reasonably concluded no evidence suggested recent alcohol consumption within 15 minutes of the test.

The court convicted the accused on both counts based on the totality of evidence demonstrating impairment.

The defendants, as property owners in a regulated area adjacent to Lake Simcoe, undertook development without proper authorization from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.

Specifically, they constructed gabion basket retaining walls not in accordance with the approved permit (which specified granite boulder walls) and built a two-storey shed without obtaining any permit.

The court found the defendants guilty of violating Ontario Regulation 179/06 under the Conservation Authorities Act.

The defendants' defences of officially induced error of law and due diligence both failed on the evidence.

A bail hearing concerning charges of possession of proceeds from crime, possession of marijuana, possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, and trafficking in cocaine.

The Crown initially recommended release on a recognizance with one surety, but withdrew its consent when the justice raised concerns about the ladder principle and Charter implications.

The matter proceeded as a contested bail hearing.

The justice released the accused on a recognizance without sureties with conditions, including a $2,500 bond, residence requirements, curfew, no-contact orders, and substance abuse counselling.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against his ex-wife.

The offence occurred when the accused attacked his ex-wife with a 25-inch serrated machete-type knife after she began packing her belongings to leave the family home.

The victim suffered multiple lacerations and abrasions requiring stitches, primarily to her hands, arms, head, and neck.

The court imposed a sentence of 610 days (approximately 20 months), less 254 days credit for pre-trial custody, resulting in approximately one year of incarceration, plus three years probation with conditions including anger management and domestic violence counselling, a weapons prohibition for 10 years, and a no-contact order with the victim.

The accused brought a recusal application during the second day of trial on an assault charge, alleging that the trial judge had previously heard a guilty plea from the accused on a related offence approximately four and a half years earlier.

The defence argued that a judge who has heard a plea cannot preside over a subsequent trial involving the same accused and requested that the judge recuse himself and declare a mistrial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the prior judicial dealings.

The applicant challenged the validity of two search warrants executed at his residence on Charter section 8 grounds.

The applicant was originally convicted of possession of child pornography following a nine-day trial.

Upon reopening the trial, the court examined whether the police exceeded the scope of the first warrant by seizing CDs and DVDs that the issuing justice had expressly prohibited.

The court found that the issuing justice's oral directions limiting the search to digital cameras and memory cards were binding on the police, and that the seizure of the Montreal CD and other storage devices constituted over-seizure in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court further found that the second warrant could not have been issued without the information derived from the unlawfully seized Montreal CD.

The court excluded the evidence and dismissed the charge.

The offender pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting a former intimate partner on July 3, 2014, in Burlington.

The assault involved non-consensual oral sex after the complainant explicitly said no and the relationship was over.

The offender and complainant were both cognitively impaired individuals who had been in a three-year intimate relationship and were discussing reconciliation.

The Crown sought 9-12 months custody, while the defence sought a six-month conditional sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation, finding that separation from society was not necessary given the unique circumstances, including the prior intimate relationship, the complainant's pre-offence sexting, the offender's significant disabilities and exemplary character, and the isolated nature of the offence.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and breach of probation.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on eyewitness testimony that the accused was positioned on top of an unconscious woman in a park, DNA evidence showing the complainant's DNA on the accused's penis, and statements allegedly made by the accused.

The accused testified that his contact with the complainant was innocent and that her DNA came to be on his penis through a prank involving a tissue.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the eyewitness evidence, the accused's incriminating statements, and the DNA evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had intercourse with the unconscious complainant.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following observations of erratic driving on Highway 400.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results taken approximately 113 minutes after the alleged offence.

The court addressed three key issues: whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving; whether the first breath test was taken within two hours of the offence; and whether the Crown proved impaired driving beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds existed, the two-hour requirement was satisfied, and the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on civilian witness observations of repeated lane weaving, officer observations of physical signs of impairment, and breath test results.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident where police discovered him engaged in sexual activity with an extremely intoxicated complainant in a grassy area outside an apartment building.

The Crown alleged the complainant was incapable of consenting due to her extreme intoxication.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding a reasonable doubt regarding the absence of consent.

Despite evidence of the complainant's severe intoxication, independent witness testimony and the accused's evidence suggested the complainant had consented to the sexual activity.

The accused brought a motion for severance of two break and enter charges.

The Crown's case relied solely on video surveillance evidence for identification purposes under the Nikolovski test.

The defence argued that a trial judge should not make more than one Nikolovski determination for the same accused, and that the interests of justice required severance.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while there was minimal factual nexus between the counts, there was a legal nexus, no prejudice to the accused, and the Crown's wide discretion under section 591(1) of the Criminal Code supported a joint trial.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after pushing a taxi cab driver on December 31, 2012, causing the driver to fall and fracture his leg.

The Crown sought six months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of six to eight months followed by probation.

The court imposed a sentence of four months in custody followed by probation, finding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate given the vulnerability of the victim, the seriousness of the injuries, and the accused's prior assault conviction.

The court also ordered restitution of $2,000.

The accused was convicted of uttering threats against the mayor of Sault Ste.

Marie under section 264.1(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and breach of recognizance for failing to report to a bail program.

The accused spent 160 days in pre-trial detention.

The court imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment on the threatening charge and one month consecutive on the breach charge, but credited seven months of pre-trial detention, resulting in time served.

The court imposed a three-year probation order with conditions including staying away from the mayor and City Hall, and a ten-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and unlawful entry into a dwelling.

After being found guilty at trial, the defendant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the grounds that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been violated.

The trial lasted approximately 20 months from charge to judgment.

The court conducted a detailed attribution analysis of the delay periods and concluded that only 7.5 months of delay was attributable to the Crown or systemic factors, which fell below the Askov/Morin guidelines of 8-10 months.

The court found that the defendant suffered only modest prejudice and that society's interest in a trial on the merits outweighed the delay concerns.

The application was dismissed.