Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause bodily harm to her son and threatening to burn her daughter-in-law's business property.

Both threats arose from a single voicemail message left on August 25, 2023, following the accused's exclusion from her other son's funeral.

The accused admitted leaving the voicemail.

The defence argued the language was figurative, referring to civil litigation rather than literal threats.

The court found that a reasonable person would perceive the voicemail as containing threats of physical harm and property damage, and that the accused subjectively intended to intimidate and be taken seriously.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

This decision from the Ontario Court of Justice, dated March 19, 2025, concerns the case R. v. M.R. The reasons for judgment are not available at this time, and no further substantive details are provided in the public record.

The defendant, Ronald Brown, was charged with multiple weapon and assault offences after allegedly confronting his ex-partner's new boyfriend, Sean Roberts, with a baseball bat and displaying a handgun.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the Crown's witnesses (Ms. Beard and Mr. Roberts) and the defendant.

The court found Mr. Roberts' testimony regarding the baseball bat credible and reliable, but his evidence concerning the handgun was not sufficiently reliable.

The defendant's testimony was deemed inconsistent, disingenuous, and implausible.

Brown was found guilty of carrying a concealed weapon, possession of a weapon, and assault with a weapon (a silver baseball bat), but not guilty of charges related to the handgun.

J.R., charged with sexual assault, brought a disclosure motion seeking various communications between the Crown and the complainant/counsel, the Victim Witness Assistant Program (VWAP), and details regarding the storage and destruction of J.R.'s DNA sample from a previous, unrelated case.

The defence argued these materials were relevant to the admissibility of extrinsic sexual activity, the similar fact witness's knowledge, and potential Crown misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the requested communications irrelevant to the evidence and the DNA sample issue unrelated to the current case.

The court also determined that the defence's claim of Crown misconduct was speculative and not supported by evidence of an abuse of process, thus not warranting the broad disclosure sought.

The applicant, Sheldon Baylis, brought a sub-facial challenge to the validity of a search warrant, arguing that the Information to Obtain (ITO) contained omissions and misleading information.

The court reviewed the ITO, making several amplifications (additions of material facts) and excisions (removal of erroneous or misleading information).

Despite finding serious improprieties in the police officer's disclosure, including deliberate non-disclosure and misleading statements, the court determined that the amplified and excised ITO still provided reasonable and probable grounds for the warrant's issuance.

The court also considered its residual discretion to quash the warrant due to police misconduct but declined to do so, emphasizing the high threshold required for such an action, noting that some omissions actually benefited the applicant by weakening the grounds.

The application to quash the warrant was dismissed, and the warrant's validity was confirmed.

The accused, RP, was charged with sexual assault.

The complainant, DJ, alleged that RP sexually assaulted her when she was 10 years old, an incident she claims to have repressed and later recovered memory of.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, noting the significant passage of time and potential for memory distortion due to family acrimony.

While finding the complainant credible, the court found her evidence unreliable due to the passage of time and external influences, which raised a reasonable doubt as to the accused's guilt.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused, Gregory Chevalier, was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over 80 mg.

He brought a Charter application to exclude evidence, alleging breaches of his ss. 7, 8, and 9 rights.

The court conducted a blended trial and Charter application.

The defence conceded impairment but disputed the identity of the driver and the "as soon as practicable" requirement for breath samples.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breath demand, that the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, and that the accused was proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be the driver, or alternatively, was in care or control of the vehicle under the presumption of operation.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the accused was found guilty on both counts.

The defendant was charged with transporting cannabis contrary to section 12(1) of the Cannabis Control Act.

The defendant argued that the cannabis found in closed containers in the vehicle's centre console fell within the exception under section 12(2)(b), which permits cannabis that is "packed in baggage that is fastened closed." The court rejected this argument, finding that the containers themselves do not constitute "baggage" as ordinarily understood, and that even if closed, they must be packed within baggage that is fastened closed to qualify for the exception.

The court convicted the defendant, finding that the legislative intent of the Cannabis Control Act mirrors that of the Liquor Licence Act—to prevent ready access to the substance while operating or having care or control of a motor vehicle.

The accused was discharged on all counts following reconsideration of a committal for trial order.

The original committal was based on evidence that the accused was found alone in an apartment where drugs and a firearm were discovered.

The Court of Appeal quashed the original committal order because the judge had misapprehended key evidence—specifically, a baseball hat that was thought to link the accused to the firearm was not, in fact, the same hat the accused had been seen wearing previously.

On reconsideration, the judge found that without this evidence, the Crown's case rested on impermissible speculation and inferential leaps.

The evidence was insufficient to establish the accused's knowledge and control of the contraband, as multiple other individuals had access to the apartment and forensic evidence linked others to the drugs.

The reasons for judgment in this criminal matter are not available at this time.

The case involves the Crown against Jordan in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100 mL.

The Crown relied on observations of erratic driving by civilian witnesses and breath sample analysis.

The accused claimed his poor driving was due to unfamiliarity with his new vehicle's technology and fear of being robbed.

The court rejected the accused's explanations as internally and externally inconsistent, finding them incapable of raising reasonable doubt.

The court also found that the 22-minute delay in obtaining breath samples, which resulted from facilitating the accused's right to counsel, was reasonable and did not violate the "as soon as practicable" requirement.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The defendant pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine (crack) involving a small amount.

The Crown sought a sentence in the 6-12 month range, while the defence sought a suspended sentence.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 24 months probation, including conditions for counselling, assessment for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder, and 40 hours of community service.

The court considered the defendant's vulnerable circumstances, lack of criminal record, guilty plea, and extensive Gladue report detailing her Indigenous heritage and personal history of trauma and marginalization.

The accused was charged with attempted murder for stabbing his co-worker repeatedly in the back and neck at their workplace.

The Crown alleged the accused knew his actions were wrong.

The accused raised a defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code, arguing he was suffering from a mental illness that rendered him incapable of knowing his actions were wrong.

The court found the accused probably suffered from a delusional disorder involving beliefs of persistent harassment and depression, but was not convinced the mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing the act was morally wrong or making rational choices about it.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

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

The accused sought to exclude evidence of Intoxilyzer test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the approved screening device demand was not made "forthwith" and that his right to counsel was infringed.

The court found no Charter violations and admitted the evidence.

The accused was convicted based on reliable breath test results showing 100 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with over 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to Section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge and proceeded on the over .08 charge only.

Following a trial, the court found that the Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted of driving over .08.

The applicant sought to terminate a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order made pursuant to s. 490.012(2) following his conviction for indecent act contrary to s. 173(1)(a).

The order was made on May 13, 2010, and the applicant applied for termination after more than six years had elapsed.

The court applied the test under s. 490.016(1), requiring the applicant to establish on a balance of probabilities that the impact of continuing the order, including on privacy or liberty, would be grossly disproportionate to the public interest in protecting society through the effective prevention or investigation of crimes of a sexual nature.

The court granted the application and terminated the order.

A child protection matter involving three children where the Children's Aid Society sought disposition orders following findings that the children were in need of protection.

The mother's relationship with a person with a serious criminal history and allegations of child sexual abuse posed significant risk to the children.

The mother repeatedly violated court orders by facilitating contact between the children and this individual.

The court granted sole custody of two older children to the father and made the youngest child a Crown ward without access, prioritizing continuity of care and the child's long-term stability and permanence.

The defendant was convicted of two counts of possessing child pornography following a trial.

The court addressed the applicability of the Kienapple principle and imposed sentence.

The defendant, a 24-year-old security guard with no criminal record, had accumulated child pornography on his computer and external hard drive.

The material was discovered when a co-worker accessed the hard drive left at the workplace.

The court found that the Kienapple principle did not apply as the two offences had different factual and legal nexuses.

The court imposed a sentence of ten months incarceration on each count to be served concurrently, followed by three years probation, along with ancillary orders including a five-year prohibition order under section 161 of the Criminal Code, DNA order, and sex offender registration for life.

The accused was charged with two offences arising from a fraud scheme: (1) defrauding a victim of $10,000 contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, and (2) possessing currency knowing it was obtained by the commission of an offence.

The victim was defrauded through a lottery scam and $10,000 was transferred to the accused's bank account.

The accused withdrew approximately $8,000 in cash and handed it to an unknown individual.

The court found the accused guilty on count 2 based on wilful blindness to the illegal source of the funds, but acquitted her on count 1, finding insufficient evidence of intent to aid in the specific fraud scheme.

The accused was convicted of six offences arising from a home invasion robbery committed with a co-accused, including robbery while armed with a shotgun, forcible confinement, possessing a firearm while prohibited, and using a firearm while committing an indictable offence.

The accused also was convicted of uttering threats to a corrections officer while in custody.

The accused pleaded guilty to all charges and accepted responsibility.

The sentencing court imposed a 49-month federal penitentiary sentence on the main charges and a concurrent five-month jail sentence on the threatening charge, with a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA order.

The court applied Gladue principles and granted enhanced pre-sentence custody credit at a 1.5:1 ratio.