Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

The accused was charged with break and enter and sexual interference after an intruder entered an eight-year-old boy's bedroom in the middle of the night and kissed him.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including CCTV footage, a fingerprint on the window, the accused's diary entries, and similar fact evidence of other nearby break-ins.

The court applied the Villaroman framework and concluded that the only reasonable inference was that the accused was the intruder.

The court further found that the act of sneaking into a child's bed to kiss him was done for a sexual purpose.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The young person pleaded guilty to voyeurism and distributing an intimate image after recording a consensual sexual encounter with a classmate and showing the video to her ex-boyfriend.

The Crown sought 18 months' probation, while the defence sought an absolute or conditional discharge.

The court analyzed the legal distinctions between a conditional discharge and probation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, finding that a conditional discharge is a meaningfully distinct sentence with a shorter record access period.

Balancing the gravity of the offences against the young person's strong rehabilitative progress, the court imposed a conditional discharge with an 18-month term of conditions.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 (unreasonable search/seizure) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, dismissing the section 8 claim.

Regarding section 10(b), the court determined there were no special circumstances requiring an interpreter, as the defendant demonstrated sufficient English comprehension and understood his rights.

The Charter application was dismissed, and the defendant was found guilty of both impaired driving and over 80 charges.

The Crown applied for a five-year firearm prohibition order against Gary Schill under s.111(1) of the Criminal Code, alleging he posed a public safety risk due to his affiliation with the extremist organization Diagolon, his anti-government rhetoric, discussions about acquiring weaponry and combat training, and possession of large amounts of incompatible ammunition.

The court found the police officer's belief that a prohibition was desirable in the interests of public safety to be objectively reasonable, based on cumulative evidence of Schill's deep ideological ties to Diagolon, his intent to engage in illegal activities espoused by the group, and the presence of concerning items at his residence.

The application was granted, and a five-year prohibition order was issued.

This is a sentencing decision following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for a workplace fatality.

The corporate defendant and two individual supervisors were found guilty of failing to ensure proper rigging of concrete blocks and adequate training/supervision, leading to a worker's death.

The court applied established sentencing principles, emphasizing deterrence and considering the increased maximum penalties for OHSA offences.

Fines were imposed on the corporate defendant and the two individual supervisors, reflecting the seriousness of the breach and the need for general deterrence.

The accused was charged with impaired operation causing bodily harm and operation over 80 mgs causing bodily harm.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, arguing that their right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was violated.

The total delay was 1846 days.

After deducting defence delay, the net delay was 695 days (22.79 months), which exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The court found that the remaining delay could not be justified by exceptional circumstances, including the COVID-19 pandemic, and entered a stay of proceedings.

Lee Mosley was convicted of four criminal offenses, including pointing a firearm, possessing a weapon contrary to a s. 109 prohibition order, failing to comply with a release order, and unauthorized weapon possession.

The charges stemmed from an incident where Mosley brandished a handgun at two unarmed men attempting to retrieve stolen tires from his property.

The court considered aggravating factors such as the use of a real firearm, the existing prohibition order, and the threat posed to public safety, alongside mitigating factors like the absence of prior firearms convictions and a history of trauma.

The pre-sentence report indicated a lack of insight and remorse.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for firearms offenses, while rejecting the Crown's request for 4.5 years as disproportionate given the specific facts and the accused's record.

The accused was charged with conspiracy to traffic cocaine and fentanyl, and possession for the purpose of trafficking, after being stopped by police driving a car containing the drugs.

The Crown relied on wiretap and surveillance evidence from an investigation into two co-conspirators.

The court found that the accused was a member of the conspiracy and either had actual knowledge or was wilfully blind to the fact that the specific drugs involved were cocaine and fentanyl.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The Crown brought a dangerous offender application against the offender following his convictions for aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and breaches of probation.

The offender had a lengthy, violent criminal record spanning two decades and was diagnosed with severe antisocial personality disorder and substance use disorder.

The court found the offender met the criteria for a dangerous offender designation, noting his pattern of persistent aggressive behaviour and high likelihood of harmful recidivism.

However, at the penalty stage, the court found a reasonable expectation that the offender's risk could be managed in the community given his recent commitment to treatment and the availability of intensive cognitive behavioural therapy.

The court imposed a determinate sentence of 8 years (with 18 months remaining after pre-sentence custody credit) followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The accused, an inmate at Collins Bay Institution, was charged with possession of cannabis for the purpose of distribution and possession of contraband after 2.2 kilograms of 'shatter' and two cell phones were found in the ceiling void above his cell.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, relying on the location of the contraband and expert evidence regarding the 'inmate code' to argue the accused must have known about the items.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the items were there, noting significant gaps in the evidence, such as the lack of forensic evidence, the unlocked nature of the cells, and the unknown parameters of the ceiling void.

The accused was found not guilty.

The accused was charged with assault and forcible confinement following an altercation with a woman he met on a dating app.

The incident occurred in a hotel room where both parties sustained injuries.

The accused claimed self-defence, testifying that the complainant initiated the physical confrontation.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and plausible, raising a reasonable doubt, and acquitted him of all charges.

The applicant, the mother of a deceased young person, applied for access to police records relating to her son under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA).

The records were sought for use in a civil lawsuit against the police regarding the circumstances of the young person's death following a police pursuit.

The court found that the materials constituted records under the YCJA, waived the notice requirement because the young person was deceased, and granted access, finding the applicant had a valid and substantial interest and access was necessary for the proper administration of justice.

Strict conditions were imposed on the use and disclosure of the records.

The accused was charged with uttering threats and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose arising from an incident in the family home on August 4, 2019.

The accused cut the electrical cord of a blender with a large kitchen knife while his wife was using it, smashed the blender to the ground, and allegedly threatened to cut or kill her.

The Crown relied on the complainant's testimony, photographic evidence, and a 9-1-1 call made immediately after the incident.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.

The court found the 9-1-1 call admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The appellant was charged with unsafe lane change under the Highway Traffic Act.

On the trial date, a paralegal acting as his agent appeared and requested an adjournment based on incomplete disclosure.

The adjournment was denied.

The paralegal then withdrew from the proceedings, stating he was instructed to "walk away." The Justice of the Peace entered a conviction without a hearing pursuant to section 9.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: that the adjournment should have been granted, and that section 9.1(2) did not apply.

The court found the refusal of the adjournment was within the Justice of the Peace's discretion but held that section 9.1(2) could not be applied because the appellant had appeared through an agent and therefore had not "failed to appear" at trial.

The appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while holding a handheld wireless communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A police officer testified that while driving on the highway, he observed the defendant holding a cell phone in his left hand and appearing to manipulate the buttons.

The officer made this observation for a few moments before stopping the vehicle.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: misapprehension of the evidence and unreasonableness of the verdict.

The Justice of the Peace had stated the observation was made for "a few minutes" rather than "a few moments." The appeal was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud after stealing approximately $11,000 from his employer, a bank.

The accused committed the breach of trust to pay a ransom to a Syrian militia that was threatening to kidnap and rape his sister.

The Crown sought a six-month conditional sentence, while the defence sought a discharge.

The court found the accused's motivation to be exceptional and credible, concluding that a conditional discharge would not be contrary to the public interest despite the general need for deterrence in breach of trust cases.

The accused was granted a conditional discharge with two years' probation, 150 hours of community service, and full restitution.

The accused was found in the driver's seat of a vehicle stuck in a flower bed with the engine running.

He was charged with impaired driving and operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The court dismissed the accused's Charter application under ss. 10(a) and 10(b), finding he was not detained prior to his formal arrest.

The court also found the accused had care and control of the vehicle, as the vehicle was operable despite being temporarily immoveable, triggering the statutory presumption.

The accused was found guilty of the over 80 charge but acquitted of impaired driving due to a lack of expert evidence linking his blood alcohol level to impairment.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking offences and possession of a prohibited weapon.

The court found a total delay of 17.5 months, attributing 3.5 months to unreasonable Crown delay in providing disclosure and 9 months to institutional delay.

Finding that the 12.5 months of delay attributable to the Crown and the system exceeded the Morin guidelines, and noting the real prejudice suffered by the accused in family court proceedings, the court granted the application and stayed the charges.

The accused was charged with driving while suspended, making unreasonable noise, failing to identify, and assaulting and obstructing a peace officer following a traffic stop.

The court found that the officers failed to strictly comply with the preconditions for a warrantless arrest under s. 33(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, rendering the arrest unlawful and acquitting the accused of the criminal charges and failure to identify.

However, based on uncontradicted evidence, the accused was found guilty of driving while suspended and making unreasonable noise.

The accused was charged with possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace after police found a loaded crossbow in a locked roof carrier on his car near the G20 Summit.

Following a finding of unfitness and subsequent treatment, the trial proceeded.

The court excluded the accused's statements due to a Charter s. 10(b) breach.

The Crown conceded there was no evidence of what the accused intended to do with the crossbow.

The court held that mere negligence or careless storage was insufficient to establish the requisite subjective mens rea or recklessness for the offence.

The charge was dismissed.