Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The accused faced charges of assault, criminal harassment, and assault causing bodily harm arising from two separate incidents involving a neighbour dispute over an allegedly illegal basement apartment.

In the first incident, the accused intentionally sprayed a tenant with a water hose while uttering racial slurs.

In the second incident, the accused confronted the landlord's son over the use of a garage, pushed him to the ground, and repeatedly punched him, causing a facial fracture.

The court dismissed the criminal harassment charge as the Crown failed to prove repeated unwanted communication, but found the accused guilty of both assault and assault causing bodily harm, rejecting his claims of self-defence and defence of property.

The young person was charged with multiple firearms offences after police stopped a vehicle in which he was a passenger and located a loaded handgun on his person.

The trial proceeded as a blended voir-dire and trial, with the young person bringing a Charter application alleging arbitrary detention, unreasonable search, and racial profiling.

The court found that the arresting officers had reasonable and probable grounds to stop the vehicle and arrest the occupants based on information relayed by Montreal Police regarding an armed suspect.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no evidence of racial profiling and no breaches of the young person's Charter rights.

The accused, Chiduben Anthony Okeke, was charged with Aggravated Assault and Failing to Comply with a Recognizance.

Both the Crown and Defence jointly sought a finding of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) under sections 16 and 672.34 of the Criminal Code.

Two forensic psychiatrists provided reports concluding that the accused suffered from schizophrenia with paranoid and somatic delusions and auditory hallucinations at the time of the offence, rendering him incapable of knowing the wrongfulness of his actions.

The court accepted the joint recommendation, finding the accused NCR for both charges, and issued a DNA order.

The judgment also highlighted the severe impact on the victim, PC Andrew Varao, and raised concerns about the lack of adequate supervision for mentally ill individuals released on bail.

The accused, charged with sexual assault and assault, brought an application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The total delay from the date of the charge to the anticipated end of the trial was 27.4 months.

The court deducted 168 days of defence delay and 192 days of delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The remaining net delay of 15.5 months fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm under section 272(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The case centered on whether consent to sexual activity can be vitiated through fraud in the context of online deception.

The accused used an elaborate Craigslist scheme, posing as a spa owner and creating fictional personas to deceive two women into believing they were engaging in sexual activity with high-end business clients in exchange for substantial payment.

In reality, the accused was the "client" and had no intention of paying.

The Crown alleged that the accused exceeded the boundaries of any consent given and engaged in aggressive breast-sucking and forced fellatio.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming all sexual conduct was consensual.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault causing bodily harm in relation to one complainant and guilty of the included offence of sexual assault in relation to the other, based on evidence of non-consent and the complainants' withdrawal of consent during sexual activity.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while blood alcohol content exceeded 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case depended entirely on the results of an Approved Screening Device test and subsequent breath samples.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to rely on the ASD results because he could not establish the device had been calibrated within the required timeframe, resulting in an unlawful arrest and arbitrary detention.

The court also found a breach of the right to counsel, as the officer failed to inform the accused of his right to search for counsel of choice, controlled all means of contacting counsel, and withheld information that the accused's father had called with a lawyer's name.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The defence brought a motion under sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking to exclude breath sample results.

The central issue was whether the defendant's roadside statements identifying himself as the driver were statutorily compelled statements under section 199 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that the statements were compelled and that their use to establish reasonable suspicion for an ASD demand and reasonable and probable grounds for breath samples violated section 7 of the Charter.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant while she was asleep at his residence on November 18, 2015.

The Crown alleged non-consensual sexual contact while the accused claimed the sexual activity was consensual.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and rejected the accused's evidence, determining that the accused placed his fingers in the complainant's vagina while she was asleep and knew she was asleep when he did so.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The accused brought a constitutional challenge under s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms against a conviction under s. 244.2(3)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code for intentionally discharging a firearm while reckless as to the life or safety of another person.

The accused was the driver of a vehicle from which his co-accused fired a shot at another vehicle.

The accused argued the mandatory minimum sentence of five years constituted cruel and unusual punishment, relying on the principle of parity with his co-accused who received a lesser sentence.

The court dismissed the constitutional challenge, finding it was bound by precedent and that the mandatory minimum was not grossly disproportionate given the gravity of the offence and the accused's instrumental role in its commission.

The applicant brought a motion under sections 15 and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings for impaired driving and over 80 operation charges.

The applicant, who has multiple disabilities including visual impairment (alternating exotropia), ADHD, and significant scarring from chemical burns, alleged that state actors (Crown, court clerks, accessibility coordinator, and police) failed to provide timely and independent disability accommodation, resulting in differential treatment contrary to section 15.

The applicant argued that inadequate accommodation led to his failure to appear on two occasions, resulting in unnecessary strip searches.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the conduct of state actors is subject to Charter scrutiny under Eldridge, the applicant failed to establish a factual foundation for a section 15 breach.

The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of breaching a section 810.2 recognizance: failing to report to police, failing to report a change of address, failing to carry a copy of the recognizance, and failing to abstain from alcohol consumption.

The defendant had been released from a 15-year federal sentence for manslaughter, forcible confinement, and breaking and entering.

Psychological assessments indicated he posed a high to moderate-high risk for violent recidivism.

The defendant breached the recognizance by failing to report for 5.5 months, relocating to Ottawa without notification, and consuming alcohol while committing theft.

The court sentenced him to 20 months less 2 months and 1 week time served, resulting in 17 months and 3 weeks incarceration, followed by a 2-year probation order with conditions identical to the section 810.2 recognizance.

This is an annual sentence review under section 94(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for a young person convicted of robbery following a home invasion while armed with an offensive weapon.

The young person was originally sentenced to 15 months custody (450 days open custody followed by 225 days community supervision).

On review, the young person sought early release to participate in a pre-apprenticeship employment and training program commencing March 1, 2017.

The court found the young person had made excellent progress in custody, completed high school, and demonstrated positive behavioral changes.

However, the court declined to release the young person at that time, finding that the interests of society were not served by early release given the serious and violent nature of the offence.

The court encouraged flexibility in reintegration leave conditions to permit program participation and scheduled an optional review for June 1, 2017, indicating a strong likelihood of release if positive progress continued.

The accused, a 31-year-old First Nations woman, pleaded guilty to breaching a long-term offender supervision order by testing positive for cocaine metabolites.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment.

The court imposed a sentence of 1 day, taking into account the accused's Gladue factors, including her status as a Residential School survivor, her history of trauma, her addiction issues rooted in systemic discrimination against Indigenous peoples, and her rehabilitation potential.

The court emphasized the importance of restraint in sentencing Indigenous offenders and the principle of rehabilitation.

The accused brought a motion to stay charges of Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking in Marihuana under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging undue delay.

The accused was arrested and charged in May 2014 and scheduled for trial in April 2016, approximately 22 months later.

The Crown opposed the stay application.

The court found that while the Participation charge was weak and should have been laid sooner, the Crown had discretion in a complex multi-accused prosecution involving extensive disclosure and multiple judicial pre-trials.

The court concluded that the accused's security interests were not violated and that he had not suffered unacceptable prejudice from undue delay.

The application was dismissed and the trial proceeded.

The accused was charged with assault and careless storage of firearms.

The assault charge was dismissed when the alleged victim did not testify and evidence suggested the accused was the victim.

The court found the accused guilty of careless storage of firearms under section 86(1) of the Criminal Code.

The firearms were stored on an accessible rack in an unlocked shack with ammunition nearby and no trigger locks, constituting a marked departure from the applicable standard of care under the Storage, Display, Transportation and Handling of Firearms by Individuals Regulations.

The accused was charged with three counts of robbery and three counts of unlawful confinement arising from a single incident on August 20, 2013, involving three teenage victims.

The Crown's case relied primarily on identification evidence from one victim who made tentative pre-trial identifications through internet photographs and a police photo line-up, coupled with circumstantial evidence including the accused's use of the nickname "Konvict," which matched the name used by the robber during the incident.

The court found the identification evidence credible and reliable despite its equivocal nature, and convicted the accused on all counts.

The accused was charged with five offences arising from a home invasion at an apartment in Orillia on June 19, 2013.

The victim was severely assaulted with a fire extinguisher, baseball bat, and beer bottle, sustaining serious injuries including head wounds requiring surgical staples and permanent hearing loss.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on evidence that the accused was present near the scene at the time of the incident, returned bloodied shortly after, made incriminating statements, and his DNA was found on a baseball cap recovered from the scene that also bore the victim's blood.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the home invasion and assault on the male victim, but acquitted him of assaulting the female victim due to insufficient evidence of his presence in the bathroom where she was attacked.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment under section 264(3) of the Criminal Code for repeatedly communicating with the complainant through voicemail messages over several days in July 2013, following an encounter at church where the complainant made clear she wanted no further contact.

The Crown sought to prove that the conduct caused the complainant to reasonably fear for her personal safety.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence brought an application for a directed verdict.

The court found that while the complainant was clearly upset and wanted the contact to cease, she did not testify that she feared for her safety.

The court granted the directed verdict and acquitted the accused, finding that the essential element of fear for safety required by section 264 had not been established by the Crown's evidence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while the concentration of alcohol in his blood exceeded the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of his rights under sections 7, 8, and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the accused was unlawfully arrested without reasonable and probable grounds, subjected to unlawful breath and blood demands, and that his privacy interests were violated during hospital detention.

The court also found that the search warrant used to seize the blood sample was invalid due to material non-disclosure and misleading information in the Information to Obtain.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused was charged with theft under $5,000 arising from an incident at a Walmart store where she allegedly left the store with unpaid merchandise.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of a loss prevention officer who observed the accused placing items into her shopping cart and then leaving without paying for them.

The accused testified that she was distracted by young children and urgent medical appointments, and that unpaid items had been placed in the cart by her children or had become concealed beneath a baby car seat.

The court found reasonable doubt regarding the accused's intent to steal and dismissed the charge.

A Charter application alleging breach of section 7 rights due to lost surveillance video was also dismissed.