Court of Justice

A custody and access dispute between separated parents of two children.

The applicant father sought joint custody and alternate week access, while the respondent mother sought sole custody and continuation of the existing limited access schedule.

The court found that the parties separated in May 2013 and that the father unilaterally implemented an alternate week arrangement in January 2015 without the mother's agreement.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer conducted two investigations recommending increased access for the father but not a full 50/50 arrangement.

The court found evidence of the father's physical abuse toward his former partners and adult daughter, though not toward the children in question.

The court ordered sole custody to the mother with an enhanced access schedule for the father based on the OCL's first report recommendations, rejecting the father's demand for equal time sharing.

The court also ordered retroactive child support and arrears payments.

The defendant was charged with "over 80" (operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood) following a failed approved screening device test.

The sole issue was whether the arresting officer's belief that the screening device was accurate was objectively reasonable.

The court found that the officer's reliance on the device's lock-out feature, which prevents operation if calibration or accuracy checks are not current, provided a sufficient and reasonable basis for believing the device was functioning properly.

The defendant was convicted.

The accused was charged with eight firearms offences following the discovery of a loaded prohibited firearm during a search warrant execution at an apartment.

The Crown's case relied entirely on two statements allegedly made by the accused: one in which he claimed ownership of the firearm while detained with other occupants, and another to police regarding the firearm's location and colour.

The court found that the first statement was involuntary, having been induced by police threats that all detainees would be jailed unless someone admitted ownership.

The court also found reasonable doubt regarding whether the second statement was made at all.

With no evidence linking the accused to the firearm beyond these statements, the court acquitted on all charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of oxycodone for the purpose of trafficking, possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The accused was arrested following a police investigation into fentanyl distribution in Eastern Ontario.

Police recovered 146 fentanyl patches, 350 oxycodone tablets, approximately $30,000 in cash, and drug trafficking paraphernalia from two residences.

The court imposed a five-year penitentiary sentence, emphasizing the dangers of fentanyl and the need for denunciation and general deterrence in response to the opioid crisis.

The accused was found asleep in a vehicle parked on the side of Highway 400 with the engine running.

A police officer detected an odour of alcohol and conducted an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test at the roadside, which led to further testing and charges of Over 80 and Impaired care or control.

The impaired count was dismissed.

The defence challenged the ASD demand as lacking reasonable suspicion and argued the demand was not made forthwith, constituting a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The court found the demand was based on reasonable suspicion and was made in a timely manner.

The Charter application was dismissed and the accused was found guilty of care or control with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The accused operated an escort service employing adult women and were charged with receiving material benefits from sexual services, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of Criminal Code sections 286.2, 286.3, and 286.4 under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that all three provisions violated the Charter and were not justified under section 1.

The court determined that the provisions were arbitrary, overbroad, and grossly disproportionate in their effects on the liberty and security of the person, particularly as they prevented sex workers from accessing safety-enhancing measures and third-party support services.

The accused was charged with operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol level equal to or exceeding 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

The accused raised four Charter challenges: (1) the objective reasonableness of the approved screening device failure; (2) the arbitrariness of detention in cells pending release; (3) a violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure due to videotaping while using the washroom; and (4) a violation of the right to counsel due to being directed to duty counsel.

The court rejected all four challenges and found the accused guilty.

The court found the ASD failure was objectively reasonable, the detention was not arbitrary as it was incident to a valid arrest and necessary for supervision and paperwork completion, the videotaping with privacy blanket protections did not violate privacy rights, and there was no improper funnelling to duty counsel.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant in an automobile on November 1, 2018, while driving the complainant home from a medical appointment in Toronto.

The complainant testified that the accused repeatedly touched his genitals and inner thigh over his clothing while driving, despite the complainant pretending to sleep.

The accused denied any sexual touching, claiming he only shook the complainant's shoulder to wake him and kept both hands on the wheel due to heavy traffic.

The trial judge found the complainant credible but harbored reasonable doubt about his reliability given his drowsy state and the practical impossibility of the accused simultaneously driving safely in rush hour traffic while engaging in the alleged conduct.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking but not guilty to firearms-related offences.

Police seized a loaded prohibited handgun and ammunition from under the driver's seat of a vehicle the accused was operating.

The Crown sought to establish the accused's knowing possession of the firearm through circumstantial evidence.

The court found the police investigation incomplete, as the two other vehicle occupants who were released before the gun's discovery were never investigated or called as witnesses.

The court held that reasonable alternative inferences existed regarding who placed the gun under the seat, and the Crown failed to negate these reasonable possibilities beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was acquitted of the firearms offences but convicted of the drug trafficking charge.

The defendant was charged with driving a motorized personal mobility device (described as a Segway-type device) on a roadway in contravention of City of Hamilton Bylaw 01-215, which prohibits riding on toy vehicles or similar devices on roadways.

The court found the defendant not guilty, determining that the bylaw does not apply to motorized devices because municipalities lack authority to regulate motor vehicles without express provincial authorization.

The device did not conform to definitions in provincial pilot project regulations for low-speed vehicles or electric kick-scooters, and the bylaw's enumerated devices were all non-motorized, indicating the city's limited jurisdiction over motor vehicles.

The defendant was charged with one count of dangerous driving contrary to section 249(1) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged that the defendant drove aggressively, making multiple unsafe lane changes, brake-checking other vehicles, and ultimately striking an e-bike rider.

The defendant contended that his driving was not a marked departure from that of a reasonably prudent driver and that the accidents were attributable to other motorists.

After hearing evidence from multiple witnesses, the court found the defendant guilty, concluding that his intentional aggressive driving—including rapid acceleration, aggressive braking, unsafe lane changes, and gesturing at other drivers—constituted a marked departure from the standard of care required and posed significant risk to other highway users.

The respondent brought a motion to change a child support order, seeking retroactive adjustment of support and rescission of arrears.

The original order, made in 2014, imputed income of $130,000 per annum to the respondent based on his default in the original proceedings.

The respondent claimed a material change in circumstances due to a 2013 kidnapping that allegedly affected his income-earning capacity.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances, provided insufficient and unreliable evidence of his current income, failed to comply with disclosure obligations, and did not demonstrate that the children remained dependents.

The motion was dismissed, and support was terminated effective March 1, 2020.

This is a status review application concerning a child in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother's history of substance abuse and failure to engage in prenatal care.

The mother sought return of the child to her care, while the Society sought an order for extended Society wardship with a view to adoption by the child's foster mother.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in maintaining sobriety and demonstrating parenting capacity during supervised visits, she had not yet demonstrated the ability to parent the child full-time without supervision.

The court ordered extended Society wardship but granted the mother monthly unsupervised access to maintain the relationship.

The accused was charged with driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80 mg/100 ml) following a traffic stop for dangerous driving.

The accused challenged the admissibility of breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, alleging multiple Charter violations including arbitrary detention, failure to provide timely rights to counsel, and failure to comply with the "forthwith" requirement for the approved screening device demand.

The court found minor breaches of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter but admitted the evidence, finding that the breaches were inadvertent, the impact on Charter-protected interests was minimal, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol (over 80) following a traffic stop on September 20, 2018.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of her arrest and detention on Charter grounds, arguing violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable grounds to arrest for impaired driving, as the only observations were signs of alcohol consumption rather than impairment.

The court also found that the defendant's detention was unlawful as she was not brought before a justice within 24 hours as required by the Criminal Code.

The Intoxilyzer test results were excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine and fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking.

A Gardiner hearing determined that the accused believed he possessed only cocaine, not fentanyl.

The court found the accused was not wilfully blind to the nature of the substance.

The accused, a young first-time adult offender with strong family support and early guilty plea, was sentenced to two years imprisonment: fifteen months for cocaine trafficking and nine months consecutive for fentanyl trafficking, with ancillary orders including DNA databank sample, weapons prohibition, and forfeiture.

The accused was charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking in cocaine (2 counts), possession of marijuana, and failure to comply with recognizance conditions.

The defence brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of a tracking warrant issued under section 492.1 of the Criminal Code, alleging that the information to obtain (ITO) lacked reasonable grounds to suspect and breached the accused's Charter rights under sections 8 and 9.

The Crown argued that the anonymous source's information was corroborated and confirmed through police investigation.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the totality of the facts disclosed in the ITO provided reasonable grounds to suspect the accused was involved in drug trafficking and that the tracking warrant was properly authorized.