Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The accused was charged with 27 offences arising from a shooting incident on the Six Nations Reserve on May 6, 2024.

The Crown alleged the accused fired a firearm at a van fleeing his residence after a physical altercation with three women.

The Crown conceded insufficient evidence for attempted murder charges.

The court found the accused guilty of five counts of pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm, uttering a threat, five counts of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, breaching probation orders, breaching a firearms prohibition order, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and driving while prohibited.

The court acquitted on two assault charges and two firearm licensing charges, finding the weapon met the definition of firearm under section 2 of the Criminal Code but not the enhanced definition under section 84(3)(d).

The accused, Noah Spencer, was charged with five firearms offences and three drug trafficking offences.

He brought a Charter application (ss. 8, 9, 10(b)) seeking exclusion of evidence, alleging unlawful detention, search, and racial profiling by police.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the police acted lawfully based on reasonable suspicion and officer safety concerns, and explicitly rejecting claims of racial profiling.

The court found Spencer guilty of all firearms and drug trafficking charges, concluding he was in physical possession of the items and engaged in a joint venture with a co-accused.

The accused, Jason Ronald Martin, faced multiple charges including impaired driving, drug possession, and probation breaches.

The defence brought Charter applications alleging breaches of ss. 8 (unreasonable search due to a routine strip search and inadequate record-keeping), 9 (arbitrary detention due to delay in bail hearing), and 10(a) and (b) (right to be informed of reasons for arrest and right to counsel).

The court found breaches of s. 8 and ss. 10(a) and (b), noting the police's routine strip search policy and their failure to promptly and clearly inform the accused of all charges.

The s. 9 application was dismissed as the delay in bringing the accused before a justice was deemed reasonable given the circumstances.

Applying the Grant test under s. 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the serious nature of the breaches and their significant impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests warranted the exclusion of all evidence.

Consequently, all charges against the accused were dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice declared a mistrial in a criminal proceeding against the accused, who had been found guilty of aggravated assault.

The mistrial was initiated by the court prior to sentencing due to a finding of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defence counsel had failed to call a qualified expert to support the accused's automatism defence, which was based on an epileptic seizure, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal requirement for expert evidence in such defences.

The court found that this error rendered the trial fundamentally unfair and constituted a miscarriage of justice, as the defence could not have succeeded without the required expert testimony.

Moussa Jaber pleaded guilty to multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences, possession of proceeds of crime, and breach of probation.

The Crown sought an 11-year global sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence, citing exceptional rehabilitation.

The court found that while the offender had made significant rehabilitative efforts and was at low risk to reoffend, these did not constitute "exceptional circumstances" sufficient to justify a non-custodial or conditional sentence given the gravity of the offences, particularly the large quantities of fentanyl/heroin, methamphetamine, cannabis, and the presence of two loaded restricted firearms and substantial cash proceeds.

The court emphasized general deterrence and denunciation.

A global sentence of 4 years imprisonment was imposed, with concurrent sentences for other counts, along with a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA order.

The accused was convicted after trial of multiple firearm-related offences including possession of a loaded restricted firearm, possession of a handgun and ammunition for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, knowingly occupying a motor vehicle containing a restricted firearm, uttering a threat to cause death, and breaches of a section 109 firearms prohibition order and probation order.

The court imposed a global sentence of 1825 days, with 1305 days remaining to be served after crediting pre-sentence custody at an enhanced rate of 1.5:1.

The court rejected arguments for a time-served sentence and emphasized denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing objectives for firearm offences.

A young person pleaded guilty to sexual assault and incest committed against his two sisters between 1991 and 1997.

The Crown sought 18 months secure custody and 6 months open custody followed by probation.

The defence sought probation and community service.

The court imposed a two-year probation sentence to commence on January 2, 2023, after the completion of the accused's adult penitentiary sentence.

The court applied the principles of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, emphasizing rehabilitation and reintegration, and considered the totality principle given that any youth custody would be served consecutively to an existing adult sentence.

The accused pleaded guilty to incest and making child pornography involving his teenage daughter.

The offences occurred over a three-week period after the daughter moved in with him.

The court considered the accused's significant criminal record, substance abuse issues, and partial lack of insight as aggravating factors.

The early guilty plea, which spared the victim from testifying, was a significant mitigating factor.

The court imposed a global sentence of five years' incarceration, less enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle in a manner dangerous to the public contrary to section 249(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and breach of recognizance for contact with the complainant contrary to section 145(3) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an incident on July 9, 2017, involving an acrimonious interaction between the defendant and his ex-wife during a child custody exchange.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the breach of recognizance but not guilty to dangerous driving.

The court found the defendant's credibility unreliable due to his agitated state of mind and inconsistencies in his testimony.

However, the court determined that the Crown failed to prove the mens rea of dangerous driving beyond a reasonable doubt, as the evidence did not establish that the defendant operated his vehicle at a high rate of speed or deliberately swerved toward the complainant.

The court found the defendant guilty of breach of recognizance but acquitted him of dangerous driving.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following a traffic stop at 2:06 a.m.

The court examined three categories of constitutional issues: (1) the lawfulness of the initial detention; (2) compliance with section 254(2) of the Criminal Code regarding the Approved Screening Device demand; and (3) the adequacy of efforts to contact counsel of choice.

The court found multiple Charter violations including a brief section 10(a) violation, a section 254(2) violation due to delay in making the demand, and a section 10(b) violation regarding insufficient attempts to contact counsel of choice.

Despite these violations, the court admitted the breath samples under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion was not required to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused was convicted.

The accused was stopped at a RIDE program and subjected to a roadside breath test which he failed.

He was arrested and transported to the detachment for an Intoxilyzer test.

Open alcohol was discovered in his vehicle, and the accused subsequently admitted to consuming alcohol in the car.

The arresting officer, despite 18 years of experience and knowledge of mouth alcohol risks, failed to conduct a second breath test or consider the 15-minute rule.

The court found two Charter breaches: first, the failure to reassess reasonable and probable grounds after discovering open alcohol and the accused's admission of recent consumption; and second, a section 10(b) right to counsel violation.

The court excluded the Intoxilyzer readings and acquitted the accused.

The Crown sought to qualify Detective Alain Boucher as an expert witness in collision reconstruction in a trial for criminal negligence causing death and dangerous driving causing death.

The accused was charged in connection with a fatal collision involving a truck and a cyclist in downtown Ottawa.

The court declined to qualify the detective as an expert, finding that while the detective was impartial, independent, and unbiased, the evidence was primarily narrative and factual in nature and did not meet the necessity threshold for expert evidence.

The court determined that the trier of fact did not require expert assistance to understand the collision analysis report, surveillance video, re-enactment video, and other materials, as these could be understood by examining the totality of the evidence without specialized knowledge.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts: possession of child pornography for the purpose of transmission and possession of child pornography.

The defendant's collection contained 60,165 still images (14,207 unique) and 1,626 videos (1,290 unique) depicting various forms of child sexual abuse.

The court imposed a global sentence of 28 months imprisonment (28 months on the making available count and 18 months on the possession count, served concurrently), along with ancillary orders including a mandatory DNA order, lifetime SOIRA registration, a 10-year section 161 order, and forfeiture of seized materials.

The sentencing was guided by the Court of Appeal's decision in R. v. Inksetter, which established that denunciation and general deterrence are paramount sentencing objectives for child pornography offences.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon against his common-law partner.

The court imposed a two-year penitentiary sentence followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing was aggravated by two prior assaults against the same victim in 1999 and 2012, both involving weapons.

The court emphasized the seriousness of domestic violence in intimate relationships and the breach of trust involved.

Conditions included a no-contact order, weapons prohibition, anger management and domestic violence counselling, and restitution of $1,234.45.

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results obtained at a RIDE (Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere) checkpoint.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the breath evidence on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The central issue was whether the presence of a media cameraman recording the breath testing procedure and the subsequent broadcast of the footage violated the accused's constitutional rights.

The court found that both a section 10(b) breach (right to counsel in private) and a section 8 breach (unreasonable search and seizure) had occurred.

The breath evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and the accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving after being stopped by police and failing an approved screening device test.

The trial addressed multiple Charter issues: whether grounds existed for further testing despite the presence of mouthwash in the vehicle, whether the initial stop was arbitrary, and whether the accused's right to counsel was breached.

The court found no breach of sections 8 or 9 of the Charter, but found multiple breaches of section 10(b) when police failed to provide a reasonable opportunity to speak with counsel of choice and made comments discouraging the exercise of that right.

The evidence was excluded under section 24(2) and the charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with sexual assault following an incident on September 7, 2014.

The complainant and accused were friends of approximately 12 years with a purely platonic relationship.

While watching television at the complainant's newly purchased home, the complainant fell asleep on a loveseat while the accused was massaging her feet and legs.

The complainant awoke to find the accused's fingers inserted into her vagina without her consent.

The accused immediately told him to leave.

The court found that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant by inserting his fingers into her vagina while she was asleep and therefore incapable of consenting.

The accused's own admissions in his text message, statements to police upon arrest, and video-recorded police statement were determinative of guilt.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results showing 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The central issue was whether the defendant was in care and control of the vehicle at the time of the collision and whether the breath tests were taken within the required two-hour window.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the precise time of care and control, rendering the breath test evidence inadmissible.

Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment based on the officers' observations and the toxicologist's opinion alone.

The defendant was acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to Criminal Code s. 253(1)(b).

The Crown called evidence of an anonymous report of impaired driving, police observation and pursuit of the vehicle, an approved screening device test showing an "F" reading, and two breath samples taken at the police station registering 120 and 110 milligrams respectively.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the breath test results, arguing there were unexplained delays between the time of the alleged offence and the taking of the first breath sample, which would undermine the presumption of identity under Criminal Code s. 258(1)(c)(ii).

The court found the accused guilty, holding that the delays were explained and the police acted reasonably in the circumstances, particularly in ensuring the accused received access to counsel in his language of choice.

The Crown sought a Dangerous Offender designation for the accused following his guilty plea to two counts of aggravated assault and breach of probation arising from a violent stabbing incident.

The court found the accused met the statutory test for Dangerous Offender status based on a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour involving weapons and violence while under court supervision, coupled with substance abuse and demonstrated inability to restrain behaviour.

However, the court imposed a determinate sentence of 33 months imprisonment (less presentence custody credit) followed by an 8-year Long-Term Supervision Order rather than an indeterminate sentence, finding that with intensive treatment, anti-alcohol medication, and structured supervision, there was a reasonable expectation that public safety could be adequately protected.