Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - OCJ

Martin Moore pleaded guilty to multiple offences including attempted disarming of a peace officer, break and enter, fraud under $5000, and assaulting a peace officer.

The court rejected a joint sentencing submission of 120 days custody, finding it unhinged from the circumstances and offender's conduct.

The judge emphasized that an attempt to disarm a peace officer is as serious as a successful disarmament under s. 270.1 of the Criminal Code, and that the offender's failure to succeed is not mitigating.

The court imposed a global sentence of 300 days custody with enhanced presentence credit, probation, and ancillary orders, highlighting numerous aggravating factors including breach of recognizance, false identification, and violent conduct.

Saieed Hagi pled guilty to possession of a loaded firearm in breach of a firearm prohibition order while on parole for a manslaughter conviction involving a firearm.

The Crown sought a 5-year sentence emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, while the Defence argued for 4 years with credit for harsh pre-sentence incarceration conditions and social context mitigating factors.

The court balanced aggravating factors including possession of two firearms while intoxicated and on parole, against mitigating factors such as a guilty plea, significant lockdown conditions, social disadvantage, and demonstrated rehabilitation efforts.

The sentence imposed was a global 4 years minus pre-sentence custody, with ancillary orders including a lifetime firearm prohibition and DNA sample.

The accused brought an application to exclude evidence under sections 8, 9, and 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that a search warrant for his residence and his subsequent arrest lacked reasonable grounds.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 were violated due to insufficient grounds in the heavily redacted Information to Obtain and lack of reasonable grounds for arrest.

However, applying the R. v. Grant analysis, the court determined that while the impact on the accused's privacy was significant, the seriousness of the police conduct was weak, and society's interest in an adjudication on the merits for serious charges (including possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and trafficking fentanyl) outweighed the Charter breaches.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

Subsequently, the court found the accused guilty on all eight charges, concluding that the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control over the seized items, particularly given the distinctive safe key found on his person.

This criminal trial concerned a sexual assault charge against Diego Doncel, where the central issue was the credibility and reliability of the complainant, R.W., a cognitively disabled individual.

The court addressed the assessment of evidence from witnesses with cognitive deficits, the use of a communication intermediary, and the admissibility of spontaneous utterances.

Despite finding the complainant truthful, the court identified significant inconsistencies in her testimony, particularly during cross-examination, which could not be resolved due to her cognitive limitations.

The spontaneous utterances to her father were deemed inadmissible hearsay.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The accused, Raphael Fortune, was charged with fraud over $5,000 and possession of proceeds of crime in relation to an alleged diamond investment scheme.

The complainant, Mike Rantissi, invested a significant sum with Fortune based on representations of no risk and high profits, but never received diamonds or his money back.

The court found that Fortune intentionally deceived Rantissi, diverting the funds for personal expenses rather than purchasing diamonds as promised.

The accused was found guilty of both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging that a police officer violated his section 8 rights (freedom from unreasonable search and seizure) by attending at his front door and entering his home foyer without a warrant, and his section 9 rights (freedom from arbitrary detention) by demanding his driver's licence, vehicle registration, and insurance while inside the home.

The court found that the officer's attendance at the door for the purpose of gathering evidence exceeded the implied invitation doctrine, and that the officer's entry into the foyer was unlawful.

However, the court admitted the evidence obtained during the breach under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would not be necessary to preserve the repute of the administration of justice.

A preliminary inquiry ruling on committal for trial involving five defendants charged with multiple counts including drug trafficking, possession of firearms, shootings, and criminal organization offences.

The Crown sought committal on 52 counts based on intercepted communications, surveillance evidence, and physical evidence.

The court applied the scintilla test for committal, requiring evidence on each essential element such that a reasonable jury could return a guilty verdict.

The judge committed the defendants on most counts while discharging them on certain fentanyl-related charges absent specific evidence of fentanyl trafficking.

The court found sufficient evidence of a criminal organization (SSW-G2M) engaged in drug trafficking and violence to enforce territorial control.

The accused was convicted at trial of communicating via telecommunication to facilitate child prostitution and communicating for the purpose of obtaining sexual services of a person under 18 years old.

The accused responded to an online prostitution advertisement, was informed the girl was 15 years old, engaged in graphic sexual discussions, negotiated price, and attended a hotel to complete the transaction where he was met by police.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 months imprisonment followed by two years probation with strict conditions, rejecting the defence submission for an intermittent sentence and conditional sentence based on exceptional family circumstances.

The court found that denunciation and general deterrence were paramount in child abuse cases and that the accused's moral blameworthiness was high given his knowledge of the victim's age.

The accused, a truck driver with a clean driving record and no prior criminal history, was convicted of an offense related to impaired or dangerous driving.

The court rejected a conditional discharge despite acknowledging the significant collateral consequences to the accused's employment and financial situation.

The court imposed a conviction, finding that denunciation and general deterrence principles were paramount given the accused's specialized commercial driving license.

A fine of $2,000 plus a victim surcharge of $600 was imposed, with 28 days imprisonment as the default term if unpaid.

The applicant was charged with failing to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(2)(b) of the Criminal Code following a single-vehicle collision.

At trial, the applicant brought a Charter application alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The court found that the applicant was unlawfully handcuffed during the breath demand without reasonable justification for officer safety.

The handcuffing was found to be arbitrary and the breath sample demand was conducted in an unreasonable manner.

Applying the section 24(2) test, the court excluded the evidence and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with five sexual assault offences involving three separate complainants, with allegations spanning from 2002 to 2003.

The trial proceeded on the basis of the complainants' evidence alone, with no corroborating evidence.

The court found that each complainant engaged in significant inconsistencies between their media interviews, police statements, and trial testimony.

Each complainant also deliberately withheld material information from police and Crown counsel, including post-assault contact with the accused that contradicted their claims of trauma and fear.

The court concluded that the complainants' credibility and reliability were severely compromised by their deceptive conduct, late disclosures, and contradictory evidence.

The court found that the evidence failed to meet the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on all charges.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a court employee charged with parking in excess time on a meter contrary to the City of Kenora Traffic Bylaw.

The trial judge had found the offence to be one of strict liability and applied the due diligence defence.

The appellate court found the trial judge erred in law by mischaracterizing the offence as strict liability when it is actually one of absolute liability.

The court held that due diligence is not a defence to absolute liability offences and that the defendant's personal circumstances, including difficulty obtaining breaks from work and safety concerns, do not excuse non-compliance with the bylaw.

The appeal was allowed, a conviction was entered, and a set fine of $20.00 plus costs was imposed.

The accused was charged with possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown conceded that a warrantless search of the residence constituted a breach of the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The court found that while a breach occurred, the police acted in good faith based on legitimate public safety concerns arising from a volatile domestic dispute involving references to a firearm.

Applying the section 24(2) Charter exclusion analysis from R v. Grant, the court balanced the seriousness of the police conduct, the impact on the accused's privacy interests, and society's interest in adjudicating the case.

The court concluded that admission of the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and admitted the evidence.

The Crown applied for an assessment order under section 672.12(3) of the Criminal Code to determine whether the accused was not criminally responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder at the time of committing uttering threat offences and breaches of probation.

The accused opposed the application, arguing the Crown had not met the statutory threshold of "reasonable grounds to doubt" criminal responsibility.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that the evidence, including Dr. Komer's assessment and the accused's history of mental illness, pointed to a potential inability to understand the nature and consequences of his actions or that they were wrong as contemplated by section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with theft over $5,000 on November 7, 2011, and robbery on December 2, 2011.

At the preliminary hearing, the Crown sought to establish the accused's identity as the perpetrator through a combination of eyewitness testimony identifying distinctive tattoos, surveillance video evidence, officer identification from video stills compared to mug shots, in-dock identification, fingerprint evidence, and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to rental vehicles used in the crimes.

The defence challenged the reliability of the identification evidence, particularly the in-dock identification and the chain of custody for surveillance video.

The justice determined that sufficient evidence existed to commit the accused to stand trial on both charges.

The accused, a former Catholic priest, was sentenced following guilty pleas to two counts of sexual assault (section 266 of the Criminal Code).

The offences occurred approximately 20 years prior and involved inappropriate sexual touching of two female parishioners.

The accused had fled to India in 1996 and remained there for 17 years before surrendering to authorities in March 2013 after his passport was suspended due to an outstanding warrant.

The court accepted a joint submission from the Crown and defence and imposed a suspended sentence with three years of probation concurrent on both counts, along with conditions including written apologies to the victims and reporting requirements.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation in a high school bathroom.

The accused claimed she acted in self-defence, asserting that the victim was about to assault her and she struck preemptively.

The Crown presented evidence from three witnesses indicating the accused attacked the victim from behind without provocation, causing a broken nose requiring two surgeries, blackened eyes, and swollen cheeks.

The court found the accused's testimony not credible and determined that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the victim without lawful justification under sections 34 or 37 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found guilty.

The appellant appealed his conviction under subsection 5.1(a) of the Dog Owners Liability Act for failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent his dog from attacking and killing a neighbour's dog.

The trial judge found the appellant was the "owner" of the dog under the Act's expanded definition, despite evidence that the dog was actually owned by a subtenant residing at the appellant's premises.

The appellate court found the trial judge erred in law by failing to clearly explain how the appellant fell within the statutory definition of "owner" (possession or harbouring), and by not addressing the standard of proof or the reasonableness of precautions taken.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100mL following an erratic driving incident on the Don Valley Parkway that resulted in a collision.

An off-duty police officer observed the driving and made a citizen's arrest.

The Crown sought to prove impairment based on driving behaviour and breath test results showing readings of 202 and 192 mg/100mL.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, the detention in police cells, and the strip search that followed.

The court found the arrest lawful but acquitted on the impairment charge due to insufficient evidence of actual impairment beyond the breath readings.

The court found violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding the detention and strip search but declined to stay proceedings, instead finding the accused guilty of the over 80 charge.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against his spouse occurring on April 23 and 25, 2011.

The complainant testified that the accused pushed her against a wall, struck her with his hand, and threatened her during arguments related to their separation.

The accused denied the allegations, admitting only to a slap in 2006.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence was sympathetic and the bruising on her arm supported her account, the accused's testimony, though containing some difficulties and contradictions, was not significantly challenged in cross-examination.

The court concluded that reasonable doubt existed and acquitted the accused on both counts.