Court of Justice

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a newborn child was in need of protection under Section 74 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging risks based on parental substance use, the father's youth justice involvement and anger management concerns, lack of engagement with the Society during pregnancy planning, and inadequate preparedness for the child's discharge from hospital.

The court rejected all grounds for the protection finding, determining that the Society failed to establish a real and likely risk of physical or emotional harm on a balance of probabilities.

The court found the parents' plan to reside with extended family support was reasonable and responsible, and that the Society's concerns were largely speculative or based on incomplete and misleading information presented in the apprehension warrant application.

The accused was convicted of mischief following a trial for his role in organizing and participating in a large motorcycle ride in August 2017 that resulted in multiple traffic stoppages on 400-series highways in the Greater Toronto Area.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence and probation with conditions, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a conditional discharge with 12 months' probation, including conditions prohibiting motorcycle operation, requiring motorcycle safety training, and mandating 40 hours of community service.

The court also granted relief from forfeiture of the accused's motorcycle, finding that forfeiture would be disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence.

The Crown sought to adduce two statements made by the defendant during a motor vehicle accident investigation: (1) that a parked car was not present when she parked, and (2) that damage to her vehicle was sustained six months prior.

The defendant challenged the voluntariness of these statements, arguing she felt obligated to answer police questions.

The court conducted a voir dire and found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that both statements were made voluntarily and admitted them into evidence.

The accused was charged with failing to appear in court contrary to section 145(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proved that the accused failed to attend court on June 23, 2017, and did not re-attend until after his arrest on October 20, 2017.

The accused claimed he was unaware of the court date and relied on his lawyer to attend on his behalf.

The court found that while the accused may not have known the specific date, he had a legal obligation to maintain regular contact with his counsel and keep informed of court proceedings.

The accused's breach of multiple bail conditions, including leaving his surety's residence in Quebec and returning to Toronto without updating his lawyer or the officer-in-charge, demonstrated either wilful blindness or recklessness regarding his court obligations.

The court rejected the accused's personal circumstances as a reasonable excuse and found the Crown proved the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle with a blood alcohol level in excess of the legal limit of 80 mgs following a traffic stop initiated by police responding to a report of an intoxicated person at an LCBO store.

The Crown relied on breath test results showing readings of 160 mgs and 150 mgs.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the evidence on three grounds: the applicability of the presumption of identity under section 258(1)(c) to transitional cases following C-46 amendments; whether the breath tests were taken "as soon as practicable" given a 17-minute delay for facilitating the accused's right to counsel; and whether the Crown proved the requirements for the presumption of accuracy under section 320.31(1).

The court found that the presumption of identity continues to apply to transitional cases, that the delay for counsel was reasonable and did not breach the "as soon as practicable" requirement, and that the Crown proved all elements of section 320.31(1).

The accused was convicted.

The applicant brought a motion to change seeking to increase child support and recover unpaid section 7 expenses.

The respondent cross-moved seeking custody of the child and shared transportation costs for access exchanges.

The court dismissed the respondent's custody claim and shared transportation claim, finding no changed circumstances warranting such changes.

The court ordered the respondent to pay $1,350 in arrears for past section 7 expenses (daycare) based on his consent to pay half of $2,700.

Child support was set at $595 monthly for September through December 2018 based on his 2018 income of $64,000, and $398 monthly commencing January 2019 based on his current estimated income of $43,348.

The matter was adjourned to August 14, 2019.

The accused, a 28-year-old man, was charged with sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and criminal harassment involving a 15-year-old girl.

The Crown alleged that sexual contact began before the victim's 16th birthday in September 2016 and continued thereafter.

The accused denied that sexual contact occurred before the victim turned 16.

The court found the victim's evidence credible and reliable, and rejected the accused's testimony as implausible and inconsistent with common sense.

The court convicted the accused on all three counts, finding that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that sexual contact occurred before the victim's 16th birthday and that the accused engaged in persistent, obsessive, and controlling behaviour constituting criminal harassment.

A costs decision arising from a motion for custody and return of a child.

The applicant (mother) sought custody of five children and the return of her 14-year-old son who had been removed from Toronto to Sudbury by the respondent (father) without consent or court order.

After multiple adjournments and temporary consent orders, the mother was successful on the motion, obtaining custody of all children including the son.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a full recovery basis, finding the father's conduct unreasonable though not rising to bad faith, and that the mother's offer to settle was as good as the final order.

The Crown sought to qualify a police officer as an expert witness to provide opinion evidence regarding factual characteristics indicative of cocaine trafficking.

The defence objected on the basis that the officer was not properly qualified under the fourth Mohan criterion.

The court found that the Crown had not established that the officer understood her primary duty to the court rather than to the Crown.

The application to present opinion evidence was dismissed.

The charge was subsequently resolved by guilty plea to simple possession of cocaine.

The accused was charged with having care and control of a motor vehicle while his blood alcohol level exceeded 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section 253(1) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a motion to exclude breathalyzer test results, arguing that his Charter right to counsel under section 10(b) was violated by police following his arrest.

The court found no breach of either the informational or implementational components of the right to counsel.

The accused was convicted after conceding the facts regarding care and control.

This is a costs decision following a motion to change custody and access arrangements for a child.

The applicant sought variation of a joint custody order and sole custody, along with a defined access schedule.

The applicant was substantially successful, obtaining 11 of 12 requested relief items.

The respondent acted unreasonably throughout the proceedings, including non-compliance with court orders, refusal to pay child support, and abusive conduct.

The court awarded costs to the applicant as the successful party, considering the respondent's egregious behaviour and the need to sanction inappropriate litigation conduct.

The Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council prosecuted a used car salesman for making unconscionable representations to a consumer with acquired epileptiform aphasia in violation of the Consumer Protection Act.

The consumer purchased a 2007 Mitsubishi vehicle and subsequently experienced mechanical issues and unexpected repair costs.

The court found that while the consumer had a significant disability affecting language comprehension and expression, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant possessed the requisite mens rea (intent, knowledge, or recklessness) for the offence.

The court dismissed the charge, finding that the consumer had meaningfully engaged in the transaction, the terms were reasonable, and there was no evidence of undue pressure or unconscionable conduct.

The defendant pleaded guilty to possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, possession of methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, identity theft, and possession of counterfeit money.

The defendant challenged the circumstances of his arrest under sections 7 and 8 of the Charter and sought enhanced credit for pre-trial detention at Maplehurst Correctional Centre.

The court found no Charter violations in the arrest execution and rejected most claims regarding harsh detention conditions, though it granted limited additional credit for an assault suffered in custody.

The court imposed a sentence of 45 months incarceration, with credit for 399 days of pre-trial detention, resulting in time served plus 32 months additional custody.

The defendant brought a bail review application seeking release from custody on charges of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted handgun, possession of over-capacity magazines, and possession of ammunition.

The defendant had been in custody since August 17, 2018.

The Crown opposed release, emphasizing the serious nature of the firearm offences, the presence of ammunition, evidence of children in the home, and concerns about the sureties' ability to monitor.

The defence argued for release based on a material change in circumstances, including the withdrawal of a reverse-onus charge, the proposed supervision plan with three sureties, and concerns about pre-trial custody approaching sentence length.

The court found the defendant had not met the onus to demonstrate a substantial or material change in circumstances but left the door open for renewal in August after trial proceedings.

The appellant was convicted of speeding (130 km/h in a 100 km/h zone) under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant requested a trial but failed to appear and was convicted in absentia under section 9.1 of the Provincial Offences Act.

On appeal, the appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the certificate of offence was irregular on its face due to an alleged alteration to the date field (a zero with a line through it).

The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the certificate was complete and regular on its face and provided sufficient notice of the transaction.

The appellant appealed his conviction for disobeying a stop sign contrary to section 136(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant claimed he had stopped one to two metres behind the stop line, but the trial Justice of the Peace found, based on officer testimony and in-car camera video evidence, that the appellant had only slowed but did not come to a full stop at the marked line.

The appellate court found the findings of fact were reasonable and supported by the evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

The appellant appealed her conviction for failing to stop for an amber light contrary to s. 144(15) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The central issue was whether the Justice of the Peace erred in refusing an adjournment and proceeding with trial where the appellant received disclosure on the trial date.

The appellant had delayed requesting disclosure until five weeks before trial, despite receiving clear instructions in the Notice of Trial and online guide.

The court held down the matter twice on the trial date to allow the appellant to review the disclosure, including officer's notes and in-car camera video.

The appellant agreed to proceed with trial after reviewing the materials.

The court found no error in proceeding and dismissed the appeal.