Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

This is an appeal from a conviction for three counts of careless driving causing bodily harm and the dismissal of an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appellant challenged the admissibility of a roadside statement, the trial judge's finding of guilt and sufficiency of reasons, and the ruling on unreasonable delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic, including a request to admit fresh evidence.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in law, no unreasonable verdict, and no miscarriage of justice regarding the voluntariness of the statement, the conviction, or the 11(b) application.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and driving over 80.

At trial, the accused brought Charter applications alleging arrest without reasonable and probable grounds and a s. 8 violation for being videotaped in his cell area while washing his hands shirtless.

The court dismissed both applications, finding the officer had objectively reasonable grounds for the arrest and the accused had no reasonable expectation of privacy while washing his hands in the cell.

The accused was found guilty of the over 80 charge but acquitted of impaired operation due to a reasonable doubt raised by his fatigue.

The offender pleaded guilty to three offences: criminal harassment, uttering a death threat, and distributing an intimate image without consent.

The offences arose from a pattern of conduct following the offender's separation from his wife and discovery of her infidelity.

The offender engaged in a prolonged course of harassment involving unwanted communications, surveillance equipment, GPS tracking, hidden cameras, and threats directed at both his estranged wife and her new partner.

The offender also created fake advertisements on a sex trade website using intimate images of his wife without consent.

The court imposed a global sentence of eight months imprisonment, with specific terms for each count, followed by three years of probation with strict conditions including no-contact orders and counselling requirements.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm to one individual and aggravated assault against another, arising from a parking lot altercation outside a bar in Niagara Falls on February 22, 2017.

The Crown alleged the defendant punched both complainants during a melee involving multiple individuals.

The defendant denied punching the first complainant and claimed he struck the second complainant in self-defence while being attacked from behind.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused the bodily harm to the first complainant, and that the evidence supported the defendant's claim of self-defence regarding the second complainant.

Both charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with driving while holding or using a handheld communication device contrary to Section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A University of Guelph police officer observed the defendant using an Apple watch while stopped at a red light on South Ring Road in Guelph.

The defendant claimed she was merely checking the time.

The court found that the defendant was distracted from driving as evidenced by repeated head movements observed by the officer over approximately 20 seconds, and that the Apple watch constitutes a handheld communication device not exempt under the legislation.

The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a $400 fine with 90 days to pay.

The accused was charged following a domestic assault incident.

Police responded to a 911 call reporting an assault in progress and entered the accused's residence without a warrant to ensure the safety of occupants.

Upon locating the accused in the basement, officers did not immediately inform him of the reasons for his detention or his rights to counsel.

The accused made incriminating statements during this period.

The court found that while the warrantless entry was justified under exigent circumstances, the failure to promptly inform the accused of his Charter rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b) constituted a breach.

The incriminating statements were excluded under section 24(2) as their admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court addressed a conflict of interest issue arising before the commencement of a five-day trial involving two co-accused charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm.

Defence counsel for one accused was also representing the other accused in separate ongoing criminal proceedings.

The court found that the divided loyalties between two current clients created a substantial risk that counsel's representation would be materially and adversely affected, and disqualified counsel from representing the first accused.

The court held that independent legal advice could not remedy the fundamental problem of divided loyalty between concurrent clients.

The Crown brought an application under section 486.3 of the Criminal Code seeking to have counsel appointed to cross-examine the complainant on behalf of the defendant in a peace bond hearing under section 810 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant appeared in person.

The court ruled that it had jurisdiction to make the order, finding that the Criminal Code procedures and provisions apply to proceedings under section 810 by virtue of section 810(5), which provides that the summary conviction procedures apply with necessary modifications.

The defendant was charged with assault and failure to comply with probation.

The Crown alleged the defendant punched the complainant, causing minor injury, and breached a probation term to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

The complainant testified she was not assaulted and that her irrational behaviour during a mental breakdown led to the defendant's arrest.

Two independent civilian witnesses testified they observed injuries on the complainant's face and heard her state she had been punched by her boyfriend.

The court found the civilian evidence credible and objective, rejected the complainant's testimony as contrived and self-serving, and found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of both charges.

The appellant was convicted of failing to yield the right of way on entering a highway from a private road, contrary to section 139(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred when the appellant's vehicle exited the Travel Lodge parking lot and struck the vehicle of Paul LaFrance, who was turning left onto Elgin Mills Road from northbound Yonge Street.

The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing there was insufficient evidentiary foundation that her vehicle had entered from a private driveway.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the trial record provided a sufficient factual basis for the conclusion that the appellant's vehicle had entered from the Travel Lodge parking lot and failed to yield to oncoming traffic.

The defendant, an Ojibway woman and member of the Serpent River First Nation, pleaded guilty to two counts of possession of Schedule I substances (fentanyl and cocaine).

The Crown sought a conviction with a suspended sentence, emphasizing the dangers of fentanyl.

The defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months probation, finding that the defendant's circumstances as an Indigenous person with a history of intergenerational trauma, sexual abuse, mental health issues, and addiction warranted a restorative approach rather than punitive measures.

Two defendants were charged with unlawful confinement under section 279(2) of the Criminal Code for apprehending a suspect in connection with a break-in at a video store and bringing him to the police station.

The Crown alleged the defendants made an unlawful citizen's arrest without reasonable grounds and without lawful authority.

The defendants argued they had reasonable grounds to believe the complainant was the perpetrator and that the police were not investigating the matter.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove forcible confinement beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the lack of physical force or restraints, the complainant's ability to leave at any time, the inadequate police investigation, and the defendants' reasonable belief in the complainant's guilt.

A trial concerning occupational health and safety violations arising from a serious mining accident at the Cochenour Mine in Red Lake, Ontario on August 4, 2013, where a worker suffered severe injuries when rocks fell onto a Mechanized Raise Climber.

The Crown charged the employer and two supervisors with multiple violations under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Regulation 854.

The court convicted the corporate defendant on counts relating to failure to provide training, supervision, and job task observations, and convicted the supervisors on counts relating to failure to ensure use of safety equipment and supervision.

The court dismissed charges relating to geology, loading of drill holes with ANFO, and notification of appropriate officials.

The accused was charged with four counts of sexual assault and four counts of sexual interference involving his grandchildren between 2010 and 2011, and with historical charges of gross indecency and indecent assault between 1975 and 1979.

Following a lengthy trial with evidence heard over multiple days, the court dismissed all charges.

The court found the two younger complainants not credible, as they admitted to fabricating stories and lies to get people in trouble.

The court also found that the conduct involving the third grandchild did not constitute sexual assault, as it involved appropriate parental instruction and medical care.

Regarding the historical charges, the court granted a stay of proceedings due to the loss of critical investigative evidence, and alternatively found the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following his arrest on December 11, 2012.

The Crown alleged the accused drove a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and subsequently refused to comply with breath demands made by two police officers.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest and breath demands, alleging violations of Charter sections 8 and 9.

The court found the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and make the initial breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, including the accused's flight from police, strong odour of alcohol, bloodshot eyes, and staggering.

The court found the accused guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample but acquitted him of impaired driving, finding the evidence of impairment, while suspicious, did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown prosecuted Vale Canada Ltd. and Keith Birnie following workplace deaths.

Vale Canada Ltd. pleaded guilty to three counts under occupational health and safety legislation.

The court imposed a monetary fine of $350,000 per count for a total of $1,050,000, payable within 60 days, with applicable surcharges.

The Crown withdrew remaining charges against Vale Canada Ltd. and all charges against Keith Birnie due to insufficient evidence of reasonable prospect of conviction and public interest considerations.

The sentencing emphasized workplace safety standards, deterrence, and accountability while acknowledging the tragic loss of life.

Three young women pleaded guilty to forcible confinement and assault causing bodily harm after luring their friend from her home, blindfolding her, forcing her into a vehicle, beating her, and abandoning her unconscious at the roadside.

The Crown sought nine months' imprisonment, while defence counsel argued for a conditional sentence.

The court imposed 195 days in custody followed by two years of probation, finding that while the offenders demonstrated strong rehabilitation potential and remorse, the gravity of the offences and egregious aggravating circumstances required actual imprisonment to satisfy denunciation and general deterrence objectives.

A 14-year-old young person pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown sought six months open custody followed by one year probation.

Defence counsel argued that custody was unavailable as the offences did not fall within the statutory gateway provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the circumstances constituted "exceptional circumstances" under section 39(1)(d) of the YCJA, permitting a custodial sentence.

However, the court imposed a deferred custody and supervision order rather than open custody, finding this to be the least restrictive sentence most likely to rehabilitate the young person while holding them accountable.

A Charter motion challenging a trespass notice issued during an Occupy Ottawa demonstration at Confederation Park.

The applicant, who participated in the occupation for approximately 48 hours, was directed to vacate the park and charged with failing to comply with a trespass directive under the Trespass to Property Act.

The applicant contended that the directive infringed her rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under sections 2(b) and 2(c) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that although the directive did infringe these rights, the infringement was justified under section 1 of the Charter as a reasonable limit prescribed by law and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

The court applied the Furtherance of Values test and the Oakes test, concluding that the city's bylaws and regulations governing park use were constitutionally valid and that the trespass notice was appropriately issued to restore the park to its lawful function.