Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The accused was charged with public mischief and criminal harassment arising from her interactions with police regarding concerns about her son being abused by his father.

At the conclusion of the Crown's case, the defence brought a motion for a directed verdict.

The court granted the motion, finding that the Crown failed to adduce sufficient evidence on the essential elements of both offences.

Specifically, the Crown provided no clear evidence of the specific false allegation constituting the actus reus of mischief, no proof of falsity, and no evidence of the accused's knowledge that her allegations were false.

Regarding criminal harassment, the court found that the accused's lawful calls to police did not constitute prohibited conduct under section 264 of the Criminal Code, and that the accused's conduct did not cause the complainant to reasonably fear for his safety within the meaning of the statute.

The accused was charged with armed robbery, using a firearm while committing an indictable offence, and having his face masked while committing an indictable offence.

The defence conceded all elements except identity.

The Crown's case was circumstantial, relying on DNA evidence from a white t-shirt found at the scene, witness descriptions, and testimony from two unsavoury witnesses with significant credibility issues.

The court found the accused guilty of armed robbery and masking his face, but not guilty of the firearm charge due to a statutory interpretation issue regarding section 85(3) of the Criminal Code.

The accused pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography.

Digital devices seized from the accused's residence contained 71 images and four videos meeting the Canadian definition of child pornography.

The images were categorized as Category 4 on the Oliver scale.

The accused demonstrated genuine remorse and had engaged in counselling.

The court sentenced the accused to 180 days imprisonment, imposed a DNA databank order, a ten-year SOIRA reporting obligation, and a five-year section 161 prohibition order with specific restrictions on contact with minors and internet usage.

A one-year probation order with conditions for assessment and counselling was also imposed.

The defendant was charged with nine counts of fraud-related offences arising from personation to apply for and obtain credit cards that were allegedly used to defraud three financial institutions.

The defendant was also charged with two breaches of a recognizance of bail.

The central issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the person who committed the offences.

The court examined identification evidence, including bank surveillance videos, financial transaction records, and officer recognition evidence.

The court found the defendant guilty on four counts (counts 1, 2, 4, and 5) and not guilty on five counts (counts 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9), primarily due to insufficient evidence linking the defendant to certain transactions and breaches.

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 operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The trial proceeded on a blended voir dire basis.

The defence alleged violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms based on the investigating officer's failure to have an approved screening device readily available when making the demand for a breath sample, resulting in an 8-minute delay.

The court found that a realistic opportunity existed for the accused to consult counsel before the test was administered and that the officer failed to take reasonable steps to facilitate the accused's right to counsel.

The court excluded the breathalyzer evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with criminal harassment contrary to s. 264(3) of the Criminal Code arising from alleged unwanted contact and harassment of a lead guitarist at her church.

The complainant testified that the accused initiated unwanted text messages, entered his vehicle without permission, blocked his vehicle in a parking lot, and engaged in unusual behavior at the church despite repeated warnings from church pastors and police.

The accused testified that she was never given a reason to stop her behavior.

The court found the complainant and Crown witnesses credible and rejected the accused's testimony as unreliable.

The court found that the accused was directly told that her contact was unwanted and that her persistent behavior reasonably caused the complainant to fear for his safety.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and also found her fit to stand trial.

The defendant, a rental equipment company, was charged under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following a workplace fatality at a General Motors plant in St. Catharines on November 18, 2011.

The deceased worker, an employee of a contracted company, was operating an articulating boom lift rented by the defendant when he was fatally injured.

The defendant alleged the equipment was mechanically defective.

The trial, which commenced in December 2014, experienced significant delays spanning over four years and seven months from the laying of the charge in June 2012.

The primary causes of delay were Crown disclosure failures and case management issues.

The court found the delay breached the defendant's Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) and stayed the charge.

The accused was charged with sexual assault, sexual interference, and sexual exploitation of a person with a mental disability in September 2013.

The trial evidence was completed in January 2017.

The defence applied for a stay of proceedings alleging a breach of the accused's Charter right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b).

The court applied the Jordan framework and found that the net delay of 512 days fell below the presumptive ceiling of 18 months for provincial court trials.

The court attributed significant delay to defence conduct and found that exceptional circumstances, including surprise witness testimony leading to expanded investigation and case complexity, reasonably explained the remaining delay.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and care and control of a vehicle while having consumed an illegal amount of alcohol contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused challenged the charges on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 7, 8, and 10(b).

The court found that the investigating officer had reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused was guilty of impaired driving based on observations at the accident scene.

The court convicted the accused of impaired driving under section 253(1)(a) but dismissed the care and control charge under section 253(1)(b) because the second breath sample was taken outside the permissible two-hour period, depriving the Crown of statutory presumptions.

The court rejected all Charter breach allegations.

The offender pleaded guilty to robbery committed against a taxi driver.

The court imposed a sentence of 9.5 months imprisonment followed by two years probation, taking into account the offender's Indigenous background, systemic factors, mental health challenges, and the harsh conditions of pre-sentence custody, while balancing the serious nature of the offence, the vulnerability of the victim, and principles of denunciation and deterrence.

The defendant pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

At a house party, after the victim attacked him, the defendant repeatedly punched the victim in the head, causing a broken orbital bone requiring plastic surgery and resulting in hospitalization by air ambulance.

The Crown sought a 90-day jail sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court rejected both positions and imposed a four-month conditional sentence with house arrest for the first two months, followed by a curfew for two months, and one year of probation.

The court found that a conditional sentence was appropriate to balance denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, particularly given the defendant's youth, lack of criminal record, and positive personal circumstances.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm, forcible confinement, and possession of proceeds of crime arising from an armed robbery of an armoured car service.

The robbery was carefully planned and executed by four accomplices, including the accused who provided inside information and access credentials.

The accused was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment with credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions, a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $175,000, and a restitution order of $175,000.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence as the primary sentencing principles given the gravity and planning involved in the crime.

The accused was charged with driving with excess alcohol (over 80 mg%) following a traffic stop on Super Bowl Sunday 2014.

The sole issue at trial was whether the breath technician's failure to perform a stand-alone self-test, as recommended by the Centre of Forensic Sciences manual, created a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the breathalyzer results.

The court found that deviation from recommended procedures does not automatically raise a reasonable doubt about reliability, particularly where the deviation is of no consequence.

The technician's evidence that he operated the instrument according to his training and manufacturer specifications was accepted.

A conviction was entered, followed by sentencing to the minimum mandatory penalties.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100ml.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, challenging the validity of the Approved Screening Device demand and seeking exclusion of breath readings.

The court found that the officer had articulable cause to investigate the accused based on common law powers, that the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol consumption based on the totality of circumstances, and that the ASD demand was validly made forthwith.

The court dismissed the Charter application, admitted the breath evidence, and found the accused guilty of the "over 80" offence while acquitting on the impaired care or control charge due to insufficient evidence.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault against his ex-wife following a single violent incident in July 2012.

The assault resulted in severe facial bruising and permanent hearing loss to the victim.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation, crediting six months for time served under stringent bail conditions.

The sentencing balanced the serious nature of domestic violence with significant mitigating factors including the accused's lack of prior criminal record, genuine remorse, engagement in counselling, and the isolated nature of the incident.

The accused was charged with uttering a threat to cause death to persons within the Chabad-Lubavitch Community Centre Synagogue contrary to s. 264.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The central issue was witness credibility.

The accused made statements to a rabbi about bringing a machine gun and shooting members of the Lubavitch community, accompanied by gestures simulating firing a weapon.

The accused's own testimony was inconsistent with his agitated demeanor and unusual conduct observed by multiple witnesses at the time of the incident.

The court found the Crown had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown relied on breath test results obtained using an Intoxilyzer 8000C.

The defence challenged the reliability of the breath tests by cross-examining the qualified technician extensively regarding deviations from manufacturer protocols, including failure to visually monitor the instrument during diagnostic checks, uncertainty regarding simulator identification, and temperature recording discrepancies.

The defence sought to rebut the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(c) by establishing the instrument was operated improperly.

The court found that without expert toxicological evidence to establish the significance of the alleged procedural deviations, a reasonable doubt could not be raised regarding proper operation of the instrument.

The accused was convicted and sentenced to a $1,100 fine and one-year driving prohibition.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court determined whether sufficient evidence existed to commit three accused to trial.

The primary accused was charged with first-degree murder in connection with the brutal torture and killing of an elderly victim.

The court found evidence supporting committal on first-degree murder based on forcible confinement and planning and deliberation.

The accused's mother was charged with being an accessory after the fact, and the court found evidence that she assisted in the cleanup and disposal of evidence.

A third accused conceded committal.

All three were committed to stand trial.

A youth charged with sexual assault and criminal negligence causing death pleaded guilty to both offences.

The Crown sought an adult sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, arguing the offences were sufficiently serious.

The court considered psychiatric evidence, a pre-sentence report, victim impact statements, and the youth's background.

The court rejected the Crown's application for an adult sentence, finding that the presumption of diminished moral responsibility had not been rebutted and that a youth sentence was appropriate and sufficient for accountability.