Court of Justice

Devonte Skye-Davis, charged with manslaughter, brought an application alleging a conflict of interest within the Hamilton Crown Attorney's Office.

This arose because his former defence counsel joined that office.

The applicant argued that the office lacked proper procedures to protect confidential information at the time of the former counsel's arrival.

The Crown contended that safeguards were later implemented and no confidential information was discussed.

The court applied the two-part test from Macdonald Estate v. Martin, finding that while no actual disclosure occurred, the lack of institutional safeguards at the outset created an unacceptable appearance of injustice.

The court rejected the Crown's argument for a different standard for Crown offices.

The Hamilton Crown Attorney's office was found to be in a conflict of interest, and the prosecution was ordered to be continued by a Crown from outside that office.

Renata Migdalski was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The trial addressed two main issues: an alleged violation of her section 10(b) Charter right to counsel and whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found no Charter breach, concluding that police acted diligently and the accused did not express dissatisfaction with duty counsel.

Based on consistent witness observations and video evidence, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation.

The over 80 charge was conditionally stayed.

The accused was charged with multiple sexual offences relating to alleged conduct toward a young complainant while she stayed at his home during school holidays.

The court assessed credibility primarily through the W.(D.) framework, focusing on inconsistencies and corroborating details in the testimony of the complainant, the accused, and family members.

The court accepted the complainant’s evidence that the accused briefly touched her vagina under the pretext of applying ointment, establishing sexual assault and sexual interference beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, the court was left with reasonable doubt regarding other alleged sexual touching during a movie and regarding whether pornography shown to the complainant was intended to facilitate sexual exploitation.

The accused was convicted on two counts and acquitted on the remaining counts.

The applicant, Alex Yizhak, sought to make inquiries of the presiding judge regarding her health-related leave, which had impacted the deliberative period of his criminal trial.

These inquiries were intended to support a s. 11(b) application for unreasonable delay.

The court dismissed the request, finding that the information already provided was sufficient, the questions amounted to an improper cross-examination of the judge, probed into private health information, and resembled a public inquiry beyond the scope of a criminal trial.

The applicants, Ethan Racanelli and Zachariah Morales, jointly charged with sexual assault, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter for an alleged breach of their s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the Information being sworn to the anticipated trial completion was 28 months and 12 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Crown argued for subtracting periods of delay due to an electronic disclosure system transition and defence requests for outstanding disclosure.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments, finding that the Crown's delay in providing crucial disclosure (complainants' video statements) was not an exceptional circumstance and that defence requests for such disclosure were legitimate.

The court found the delay prima facie unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings for both applicants.

The defendant, Nathaniel Davis-Ball, was found guilty after trial of robbery, aggravated assault, and extortion.

The Crown sought a real jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court addressed the availability of a conditional sentence, particularly in light of R. v. Sharma and the principle of horizontal stare decisis as clarified in R. v. Sullivan.

Following the precedent set in R. v. Forrestall, the judge concluded that a conditional sentence was an available option.

Considering the seriousness of the offences, their impact on the victim, and the offender's background and moral responsibility, the court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by two years of probation, including electronic monitoring and community service.

The offender pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and two counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm after intentionally striking three teenagers with his vehicle following an earlier assault and robbery.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the severity of injuries and the deliberate use of the vehicle as a weapon, and mitigating factors, such as the offender's youth, remorse, guilty plea, and rehabilitation efforts.

The judge imposed an intermittent sentence of 90 days for aggravated assault, followed by a 22-month conditional sentence for the driving offences, and 8 months of probation, along with a 5-year driving prohibition and other ancillary orders.

The respondent brought a motion to change a spousal support order, seeking to terminate payments due to the applicant's re-partnering.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought retroactive spousal support arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the applicant's new committed relationship, which diminished her need-based entitlement to support.

The applicant's claim for retroactive arrears was dismissed as the respondent had complied with the existing order.

The court varied the spousal support, reducing the monthly amount and setting a future termination date, while acknowledging a modest compensatory element.

L.M. pleaded guilty to possessing, accessing, and distributing child pornography.

The Crown applied for an assessment to determine if L.M. should be declared a dangerous offender or a long-term offender.

The court dismissed the application for a dangerous offender assessment, finding no sufficient causal link between L.M.'s conduct and severe psychological damage to victims to classify the offences as "serious personal injury offences" (SPIO) under s.752 of the Criminal Code.

However, the court granted the application for an assessment to determine if L.M. might be a long-term offender under s.753.1, given his criminal history and risk of reoffending.

This decision addresses two pre-trial applications in a criminal case involving an internet luring charge.

The accused sought to exclude electronic messages (Facebook) on the basis of an unreasonable search and seizure under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown sought to admit a statement made by the accused to the investigating officer, arguing its voluntariness.

The court found that the accused had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the electronic communications, and the warrantless search by police was a serious Charter infringement, leading to the exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court also found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's statement was voluntary, citing inadequate cautioning and record-keeping by the police, rendering the statement inadmissible.

The accused, Christopher Filiault, pleaded guilty to failing to remain at the scene of a fatal accident and obstructing justice after his vehicle struck and killed a seven-year-old child.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the profound impact on the victim's family and the accused's attempts to hide his involvement, and mitigating factors such as his guilty plea, genuine remorse, and positive prospects for rehabilitation.

The central issue was whether a conditional sentence was appropriate, balancing denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation.

The court ultimately imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with strict house arrest and GPS monitoring, followed by 12 months probation, along with a 3-year driving prohibition, DNA order, and weapons prohibition.

The accused, Nikolas Morello, was charged with assault against his intimate partner, Megan Charette.

The case involved conflicting testimonies, issues of credibility, and video evidence.

The court found Ms. Charette's testimony to be inconsistent and manipulative, raising serious doubts about her credibility.

While the video showed some physical contact, the court could not ascertain the accused's intent with the required certainty.

The defence of property argument was also briefly addressed, with the court emphasizing caution in applying it in intimate partner violence contexts.

The accused was found not guilty due to reasonable doubt.

A young person, P.W., was sentenced for multiple firearms-related offences and breaches of court orders, including careless use of a firearm, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and possession of a prohibited firearm.

The charges stemmed from two separate incidents, one involving the possession of a sawed-off shotgun and another where a 14-year-old victim sustained a devastating brain injury from a gunshot.

The court applied the principles of youth sentencing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, emphasizing accountability, rehabilitation, and reintegration.

Accepting a joint submission from Crown and defence, the court imposed a one-year custody and supervision order (eight months open custody, four months supervision), with credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

Ancillary orders included a five-year weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

The Crown applied for a preventative order under s. 810.2 of the Criminal Code against the respondent, who had recently completed a sentence for aggravated assault against an intimate partner.

The court first ruled on the admissibility of various documents in the Crown's application record, applying the 'credible and trustworthy' standard to exclude unproven allegations and an unsupported psychological assessment.

Based on the admissible evidence, including the respondent's extensive criminal record of domestic violence, the court found reasonable grounds to fear he would commit a serious personal injury offence and ordered him to enter into a recognizance.

The accused, Nathan Johnson, faced charges including child luring, communicating for sexual services, and distributing sexually explicit material.

The court heard a Charter application for a stay of proceedings due to lost evidence (chatlogs from a dating site).

The chatlogs, crucial for establishing the alleged victim's age as under 18, were deleted from the officer's device and the platform due to police inaction and delay in preservation efforts.

The court found the police officer's failure to preserve the evidence constituted unacceptable negligence, breaching the accused's Section 7 and 11(d) Charter rights to disclosure and a fair trial.

Consequently, the proceedings were stayed.

Ryan Burke appealed his conviction for transporting cannabis in a motor vehicle contrary to s. 12(1) of the Cannabis Control Act.

The appeal raised four grounds related to the statutory interpretation of "baggage" and "fastened closed" under s. 12(2)(b) of the Act.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the modern approach to statutory interpretation, did not err in defining "baggage" to exclude small pill bottles or the vehicle's center console, and was not required to make findings on whether the containers were "fastened closed" once they were determined not to be "baggage."