Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

This decision concerns a s. 24(2) Charter application to exclude evidence (a firearm) obtained following an invalid search warrant and unconstitutional police entry.

The court applied the three-factor test from R. v. Grant, finding the police conduct (gross negligence in preparing the Information to Obtain, misleading statements, lack of investigation, and warrantless entry) to be extremely serious.

While the impact on the accused's privacy interest was moderate (as he was not a resident), the seriousness of the police misconduct outweighed society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits.

The court concluded that admitting the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and therefore excluded the firearm against all accused.

The accused, Diego Doncel, applied under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code for production of various third-party records relating to the complainant, R.W., in a sexual assault case.

R.W. has a severe mental disability.

The court ordered a narrow subset of records (formal assessments or diagnostic evaluations of R.W.'s cognitive functioning) to be produced for judicial review, finding them likely relevant to R.W.'s testimonial competence and credibility/reliability at trial.

The application for broader medical/therapeutic records and records related to an unrelated prior criminal charge involving R.W. (from police and Crown) was denied, as these did not meet the "likely relevant" threshold or were deemed speculative.

The court also declined to order disclosure of identifying details from the unrelated charge to facilitate public record searches.

This is a sentencing decision for Brandon Charles Rusk, who was found guilty of multiple sexual offences against a 13-year-old victim, including sexual assault, exposing genitals, sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.

The Crown sought 12-15 months imprisonment, while the accused sought a conditional or intermittent sentence.

The court imposed a one-year term of imprisonment followed by three years of probation, along with various ancillary orders (DNA, SOIRA for life, s. 161 order, weapons prohibition, no-contact).

The judge found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate given the serious nature of the offences, the accused's lack of insight into consent, and the significant impact on the victim, despite the accused's recent efforts at rehabilitation for substance abuse.

The court declined to rule on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences as the appropriate sentence exceeded these minimums.

The applicant challenged the validity of search warrants under s. 8 of the Charter at a Garofoli hearing (Step 6).

The Crown sought to defend warrants for searches at three locations based on information from confidential informants.

The court applied the "three Cs" test from R. v. Debot (compelling, credible, corroborated) to assess the reliability of the informant information.

The court found that the informant's detailed, first-hand information about the accused's drug dealing activities, combined with the informant's credibility and police corroboration, met the requisite standard for warrant issuance.

The warrants were upheld as valid.

An application under section 74 of the Firearms Act to review the Chief Firearms Officer's decision to revoke the applicant's firearms licence.

The applicant, a retired military officer with PTSD and a history of alcohol abuse, had his licence revoked following several incidents involving mental health crises and impaired driving between October 2017 and September 2018.

The applicant sought to overturn the revocation, presenting new medical evidence from specialized treatment providers indicating significant improvement in his condition, abstinence from alcohol, and minimal risk regarding firearm possession.

The court found the original decision reasonable but determined that the new medical evidence was substantial enough to undermine the factual assumptions underlying the revocation decision and granted the application.

The defendant was charged with failing to comply with a Property Standards Order issued by the City of Pickering under the Building Code Act, 1992.

The order required the defendant to remedy violations on his residential property, including removing inoperative vehicles, garbage, and debris from the yard by May 17, 2018.

When the defendant failed to comply, the municipality attended the property with contractors and removed items from the yard.

The defendant challenged the conviction on Charter grounds, arguing violations of sections 7 and 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court rejected both Charter applications and convicted the defendant.

The defendant was charged with possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, simple possession of hydromorphone, and possession of proceeds of crime following a search warrant execution at an apartment.

The court found that the search warrant lacked sufficient grounds for issuance due to the Crown's failure to disclose the confidential informant tearaway (Appendix E) and inadequate corroborating surveillance.

Although the defendant lacked standing to challenge the apartment search, the court found his arrest and personal search unlawful under section 8 of the Charter.

The evidence seized from the defendant's person was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in insufficient evidence to proceed on the trafficking and proceeds of crime charges.

The simple possession charge also failed due to insufficient evidence of the defendant's knowledge and control.

The Crown brought an application seeking to vacate a preliminary hearing date scheduled for October 29, 2019, and to remand the accused to Superior Court unless he re-elected to be tried in Ontario Court of Justice.

The application arose from amendments to sections 535 and 536 of the Criminal Code (Bill C-75) that came into force on September 19, 2019, limiting preliminary inquiries to cases where the accused faces a maximum penalty of 14 years or more.

The Crown argued the amendments should apply retrospectively to all pending cases, including the accused's case where the maximum penalty was less than 14 years.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the amendments are purely procedural, they cannot be adapted to pending cases where an accused has already elected trial in Superior Court and requested a preliminary hearing.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm following an unprovoked attack on two strangers outside a Tim Hortons coffee shop in Richmond Hill.

The offender stabbed both victims with a blade, causing serious injuries including stab wounds to vital organs.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence for aggravated assault and a concurrent 6-month sentence for assault causing bodily harm, with credit for pretrial custody, lockdowns, and restrictive bail conditions.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication order.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking in fentanyl.

On two occasions in January and February 2018, the defendant sold fentanyl patches from her prescription to another individual, totaling 18 patches of 25 micrograms each.

The Crown sought three years in penitentiary while the defence sought one year in reformatory.

The court imposed a sentence of one year in jail followed by one year of probation, considering the defendant's extraordinary personal circumstances, including a history of childhood sexual abuse, multiple mental and physical health conditions, genuine remorse, and lack of prior custody, balanced against the serious danger posed by fentanyl trafficking and the need for general deterrence and denunciation.

A young Indigenous woman pleaded guilty to impaired driving with a blood alcohol concentration almost three times the legal limit.

The mandatory minimum sentence under s. 255(1) of the Criminal Code precluded consideration of a discharge under s. 730.

The court found that the mandatory minimum sentence violated s. 12 of the Charter as it would result in a grossly disproportionate punishment—specifically, the imposition of a criminal record—for a young Aboriginal first offender with strong rehabilitative potential and genuine efforts to address her alcohol addiction.

The court declined to apply the unconstitutional provision and granted a conditional discharge subject to probation conditions including a one-year driving prohibition.

This is a voir dire decision determining the admissibility of evidence of prior sexual activity between the complainant and the accused, led by the Crown during trial.

The court considered whether evidence of consensual sexual conduct on other occasions, including details of BDSM activities and statements made by the accused on multiple occasions, should be admitted.

The court applied the principles established in R. v. Seaboyer and the statutory framework of section 276 of the Criminal Code, balancing the probative value of the evidence against potential prejudice to the complainant's privacy rights and the interests of justice.

The court admitted the evidence, finding it relevant to issues beyond the "twin myths" and that any interference with the complainant's privacy was justified by the interests of justice.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol after being found asleep in his vehicle in a maintenance yard.

The Crown's case relied on observations of impairment at the scene and breath test results showing blood alcohol levels of 100 and 95 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of evidence on Charter grounds, alleging that video recording of him using toilet facilities in police custody violated his section 7 and 8 rights.

The court found a Charter breach occurred due to improper positioning of a privacy screen in the cell video system, but determined that exclusion of evidence was not warranted under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was convicted of both impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.

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

The information was sworn on August 16, 2017, and the trial was scheduled to conclude on June 20, 2019, totaling 673 days.

The court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan and R. v. Cody to determine whether the delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The court identified two key issues: whether delay in retaining counsel constituted defence delay, and whether delays caused by three audits of interpreter translations constituted exceptional circumstances.

The court found that 89 days of defence delay should be deducted for the period when the accused switched between Legal Aid and private counsel retention.

The court also found that all delays caused by the three interpreter audits (totaling 99 days) constituted discrete exceptional events that could not be reasonably mitigated by the Crown or justice system.

After deducting 188 days total, the net delay fell below 18 months, and the application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with driving while disqualified and driving with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the traffic stop, the search of the vehicle, and the adequacy of Charter rights warnings, particularly regarding the right to counsel upon a change in jeopardy.

The court found the traffic stop was lawful based on reasonable suspicion and independent authority under the Highway Traffic Act.

Although the court found a violation of the right to counsel upon the change of jeopardy, the breath readings were admitted under section 24(2) of the Charter based on the minimal seriousness of the violation and the societal interest in adjudication on the merits.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

A young person was found guilty at trial of three counts of assault, two counts of sexual assault, and one count of unlawful confinement committed at age 16, and pleaded guilty to one count of uttering threats, one count of criminal harassment, and two counts of failing to comply with probation terms committed as an adult.

The offences were committed against the mother of his child over a prolonged period involving repeated physical and sexual violence, followed by years of harassment via social media.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years custody and community supervision for the youth offences and three years imprisonment for the adult offences, with ancillary orders including DNA collection, weapons prohibitions, and no-contact orders.

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 accused was convicted of mischief following a trial for his role in organizing and participating in a large motorcycle ride in August 2017 that resulted in multiple traffic stoppages on 400-series highways in the Greater Toronto Area.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and probation with conditions, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months' probation, including conditions prohibiting motorcycle operation, requiring motorcycle safety training, and mandating 40 hours of community service.

The court also granted relief from forfeiture of the accused's motorcycle, finding that forfeiture would be disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence.

Following conviction on charges of Threaten Death, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, and Criminal Harassment, the court imposed sentence on the accused who had used threats and intimidation against his estranged wife to coerce access to their children, intimidated her during family court proceedings, and distributed sexually explicit images of her at her workplace.

The court applied the Kienapple rule to stay the Threaten Death charge as subsumed in the more serious Intimidation charge.

The accused was sentenced to 12 months for Criminal Harassment and 18 months conditional sentence (to be served concurrently with each other but consecutive to the harassment count) for Intimidation and Obstruct Justice, plus 12 months probation and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The court balanced the serious nature of the offences and their repeat nature against evidence of recent rehabilitation and family support.

The accused was convicted following trial of assault, mischief to property (two counts), and sexual assault against his domestic partner over a period spanning from January 2015 to January 2017.

The Crown sought imprisonment for two years less one day followed by probation.

The defence sought a shorter custodial sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months imprisonment followed by three years probation on the sexual assault charge, with concurrent one-day sentences on the remaining charges.

The court considered sentencing principles including proportionality, denunciation, and general deterrence, while also accounting for the accused's lack of prior criminal record, positive background, and difficult childhood.