Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The defendant in a Building Code Act prosecution brought a second disclosure motion seeking field notes, memoranda, and investigators' files from the City of Toronto.

The first disclosure motion had been denied as a fishing expedition.

However, the defendant subsequently obtained documents through a Freedom of Information request that supported potential defences of officially induced error, statute of limitations, and legal non-conforming use.

The court found the defendant satisfied the onus to establish relevance and granted the second disclosure motion, noting the City did not respond to oppose it.

Following findings of guilt on two counts of uttering threats, the defendant sought to schedule a s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay.

The court declined to hear the application, holding that the defendant failed to comply with her duty to raise delay proactively and in a timely manner, having made a tactical decision to await the trial outcome before pursuing the application, contrary to the principles established in R. v. J.F. and R. v. MacLaughlin.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of police conduct during the execution of search warrants at his residence and the subsequent search of his cellular phone.

The court found multiple violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including: an unreasonable manner of executing the search warrant at the residence; a warrantless search of the cellular phone; execution of a phone search warrant outside its authorized time frame; and failure to provide the accused with his right to counsel immediately upon arrest.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these breaches under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The appellant, Igor Iagolnik, appealed a speeding conviction under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the Justice of the Peace erred by refusing an adjournment when the prosecution used certified statements and that the evidence was insufficient.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that certified statements under s. 48.1 of the Provincial Offences Act are admissible and sufficient proof in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The court also clarified that pre-conditions for speed measurement evidence admissibility are no longer required for established technologies like RADAR/LIDAR, and speculation does not constitute evidence to the contrary.

Sentencing decision following conviction for aggravated assault and weapons dangerous.

The accused stabbed the victim once in the cardiac box during an altercation, causing catastrophic injuries including cardiac arrest, anoxic brain injury, and permanent cognitive and functional impairment.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years on the aggravated assault charge, with 12 months concurrent on the weapons charge, resulting in a net sentence of 1.5 years after crediting 2 years of pretrial custody.

The court applied collateral consequence credit of 3 months for harsh incarceration conditions, resulting in a final net sentence of 15 months, followed by 2 years probation with conditions including no contact with the victim, counselling, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused were charged with offences arising from the discovery of two handguns in a downtown Toronto hotel room.

The Crown sought to admit evidence obtained through an investigative chain that included an initial street-level drug investigation, a warrantless search of a rental car, and a warrantless entry into a hotel room.

The accused challenged the admissibility of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple Charter breaches.

The court found that while there were some Charter violations, they were not sufficiently serious to warrant exclusion of the evidence.

The court admitted the evidence, finding that the officers acted in good faith, the breaches were minimal, and society's interest in prosecuting firearm offences outweighed the Charter violations.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a failed roadside screening test.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results obtained at a police station.

The trial judge found that the Crown failed to establish the statutory preconditions to the presumption of accuracy under the new Criminal Code provisions, specifically failing to prove that the alcohol standard used in the breath testing instrument was certified by an analyst.

Although the judge found the presumption of identity remained available for transitional cases and that the samples were taken as soon as practicable, the failure to establish the preconditions to the presumption of accuracy was dispositive.

The accused was acquitted.

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.

Three appellants appealed dismissals of their Charter section 11(b) applications for stays of proceedings based on unreasonable delay in Part I Provincial Offences Act prosecutions.

The central issue was whether the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan applies to Part I offences or whether a lower ceiling should apply given the simplicity of such proceedings.

The court held that the 18-month ceiling applies to all provincial court matters, including Part I offences.

The court also addressed the test for demonstrating unreasonable delay below the ceiling, the requirement for meaningful steps to expedite proceedings, and the circumstances in which summary dismissal of frivolous applications is appropriate.

The accused was charged with six counts of assault on his wife occurring between 2007 and 2013, one involving a television remote control as a weapon, as well as criminal harassment in summer 2016 and failing to comply with a recognizance on September 9, 2016.

The case turned on credibility.

The Crown called only the complainant as a witness.

The accused testified and denied all allegations, providing an alibi for September 9, 2016.

The court found the complainant credible and rejected the accused's evidence.

The court convicted on all assault counts but acquitted on the fail to comply and criminal harassment charges, finding reasonable doubt regarding the accused's presence at the complainant's workplace on September 9, 2016.

A defendant was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in prescription drugs following a traffic stop and roadside search.

The court conducted a Charter application to determine whether evidence obtained during the stop should be excluded.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the investigative detention, the warrantless search of her purse and vehicle, and the denial of timely access to counsel.

The court found that the detention was arbitrary, lacking reasonable suspicion; the search was unlawful, as there was no valid consent and no genuine officer safety concern; and access to counsel was improperly delayed.

The court excluded all evidence obtained as a result of these Charter breaches under section 24(2), finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

On appeal from a stay of proceedings entered by Justice of the Peace H. Radtke on June 21, 2016, the court considered whether the respondent's right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was breached.

The respondent was charged with speeding on December 30, 2014, and the matter proceeded through two adjournments before a stay was granted.

The appeal court applied the framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, and determined that the net delay of 326 days (10 months and 22 days) was presumptively reasonable.

The court also addressed whether the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan applies to Part I Provincial Offences Act proceedings, concluding that a lower ceiling of approximately 14 months is more appropriate for such regulatory matters.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol.

The sole issue was whether the arresting officer's delayed demand to provide suitable samples into an Approved Instrument breached the defendant's section 8 Charter rights.

The officer delayed making the demand for approximately 12-13 minutes after arrest while completing administrative tasks and attending to other matters.

The court found that the demand was not made "as soon as practicable" as required by statute, constituting a breach of the defendant's section 8 rights.

However, applying the Grant factors under section 24(2) of the Charter, the court determined that the breach was minor and technical in nature, the officer's conduct was otherwise professional and exemplary, there was no deleterious impact, and the evidence was highly reliable.

The court admitted the breath samples into evidence and declined to exclude them or prohibit the Crown from relying on the presumption of identity.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud over $5,000 contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender, a repeat fraudster with a prior 2010 fraud conviction, defrauded three victims of a combined total of approximately $134,569.53 through false representations regarding access to IPOs.

The offender targeted friends and acquaintances at a golf club and a woman he met on a dating website, exploiting her romantic interest.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years less a day with three years' probation, finding the offender to be an unrepentant conman with no genuine remorse despite his guilty plea.

The appellant appealed a sentence imposed for failing to comply with a Property Standards Order issued under the Building Code Act.

The appellant was convicted of non-compliance with an order requiring repairs to a residential property by August 15, 2012.

The sentencing judge imposed a $2,000 fine and six-month probation order.

The appellant challenged the sentence on grounds that evidence from her husband was improperly excluded and that certain factual findings were erroneous.

The appellate court upheld the sentence, finding it fit and proportionate within the acceptable range for the offence.

The Crown charged William Pav and Dylan Violo with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on College Street in Toronto on January 13, 2013, where the defendants allegedly participated in a swarming attack on Joseph Kau.

A directed verdict was granted on the assault with a weapon charge against Violo.

The trial focused on identification evidence and was corroborated by DNA evidence linking the defendants' clothing and Pav's hands to the victim's blood.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault causing bodily harm but acquitted Pav of assault with a weapon due to insufficient evidence of weapon use.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and unlawfully in a dwelling.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and raised the defence of non-insane automatism in the form of parasomnia (sexomnia), claiming he was asleep during the alleged assault.

The trial judge rejected the automatism defence, finding the defendant had not established a proper evidentiary foundation on a balance of probabilities.

The judge found the defendant's account of events was inconsistent and unreliable, and that his actions demonstrated conscious, purposeful decision-making inconsistent with parasomnia.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault but acquitted of the unlawfully in a dwelling charge due to reasonable doubt regarding specific intent.

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 defendant was charged with "Follow Too Closely" contrary to section 158(1) of the Highway Traffic Act on December 5, 2011.

The defendant brought a Charter application under sections 11(b) and 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the overall delay of 14 months was excessive for a minor provincial offence.

The court found that the defendant's rights to trial within a reasonable time were infringed, with institutional delay and Crown actions accounting for 11.5 months of the total delay.

The court granted a stay of proceedings.

The accused was sentenced for possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a guilty plea.

A general warrant executed at his residence revealed involvement in methamphetamine production and drug trafficking.

The Crown and defence jointly recommended 15 months' incarceration.

The key issue was whether a sentence reduction should be granted for the accused's surrender of significant contraband items, including a machine gun, methamphetamine, ephedrine, and GBL, valued at approximately $165,000.

The court distinguished between cooperation with police that leads to arrests or investigations versus mere surrender of items, ultimately imposing a nine-month sentence with a six-month credit for the surrender.