Court of Justice

The accused was charged with luring a child for a sexual purpose contrary to section 172.1(1)(c) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown amended the charge during trial to section 172.1(1)(b).

The accused communicated with two young complainants via Facebook and text messages, sending sexually explicit messages and a photograph of his genitals.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, having proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he intentionally communicated by computer with persons he knew to be under the age of fourteen for the specific purpose of facilitating the commission of a sexual offence.

The accused was charged with uttering a threat to cause death to persons within the Chabad-Lubavitch Community Centre Synagogue contrary to s. 264.1(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The central issue was witness credibility.

The accused made statements to a rabbi about bringing a machine gun and shooting members of the Lubavitch community, accompanied by gestures simulating firing a weapon.

The accused's own testimony was inconsistent with his agitated demeanor and unusual conduct observed by multiple witnesses at the time of the incident.

The court found the Crown had proven the charge beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the accused.

The defendant was charged with assault with a weapon following an incident at a shopping plaza parking lot in Richmond Hill during a child custody exchange.

The complainant alleged the defendant struck her with a ski during a heated dispute over access to their daughter.

The defendant denied any physical contact.

The court found the complainant's evidence regarding the mechanics of the alleged assault to be unclear and internally inconsistent.

The defendant's evidence, corroborated by his girlfriend who witnessed the incident, was that he did not strike the complainant and had no physical contact with her.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) test, the court found the defendant not guilty, as the Crown failed to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a road rage incident at the intersection of Aerowood Drive and Dixie Road in Mississauga.

The prosecution alleged the defendant pushed the complainant into the intersection with his tractor-trailer and subsequently collided with the complainant's vehicle while making a U-turn.

The defendant denied the allegations, claiming he was unaware anyone was in front of his truck and that the incident occurred on private property.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that the driving conduct occurred on a highway and constituted careless driving without due care and attention or reasonable consideration for others using the highway.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual assault of two children (his stepchild and biological child), counselling another person to make child pornography, and possessing child pornography.

The offences involved possession of hundreds of explicit images of children, online communications requesting specific sexual acts be performed on children, and direct sexual contact with his own children.

The court imposed a global sentence of approximately six years, comprising a three-year penitentiary sentence plus credit for pre-plea custody exceeding twenty-three months, with concurrent sentences for the various offences.

The court also imposed a ten-year prohibition order, DNA order, ten-year internet restriction order, and required compliance with sex offender registration.

The accused was charged with sexual assault of his former girlfriend on May 24, 2013.

The complainant alleged the encounter was non-consensual, while the accused claimed it was consensual or that he honestly believed it was.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Ewanchuk and found the complainant credible and the accused not credible.

The court determined the complainant did not consent and that the accused was aware of her lack of consent and proceeded regardless.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit (over 80), and stunt racing (exceeding the speed limit by more than 50 km/hr).

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test evidence, claiming a violation of her right to counsel under the Charter.

The court found the defendant not guilty of impaired driving but guilty of over 80 and stunt racing.

The court rejected the Charter argument, finding the police made reasonable efforts to locate counsel of choice and that the defendant's testimony regarding denial of cell phone access was not credible.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was arrested on December 16, 2012 for impaired driving and care or control of a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg/100 mL.

The trial was scheduled for March 13-14, 2014, approximately 15 months after the incident.

The court found that the Crown's disclosure was incomplete and late, with essential police notes not provided until after the second court appearance.

The court calculated state-attributable delay as 1 month and 4 days for late disclosure and 10 months and 3 days for institutional delay, totaling approximately 11¼ months.

The court found this exceeded the Morin guidelines of 8-10 months and that the accused suffered real prejudice.

The motion was granted and the charges were stayed.

The accused pleaded guilty to attempted murder of his wife on October 28, 2012.

The victim was stabbed multiple times in bed, pursued through the residence, and the accused subsequently set fires throughout the home and disconnected the propane line, endangering first responders.

The victim escaped through a bathroom window onto the roof.

The court imposed a sentence of nine years imprisonment with credit for 22 months of pre-trial custody, resulting in seven years and two months remaining to be served.

The sentencing considered aggravating factors including the brutal nature of the attack, breach of trust, and violation of a no-contact order, balanced against mitigating factors including the accused's advanced age (78 at time of offence), genuine remorse, guilty plea, and otherwise exemplary character.

The applicant sought to exclude all evidence obtained during a DUI investigation, including breath sample results, on the basis that his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) were violated.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the applicant for impaired operation based on observed erratic driving and indicia of impairment.

However, the court found a significant breach of the applicant's section 10(b) right to counsel by failing to provide a reasonable opportunity to contact his counsel of choice before requiring breath samples.

The court excluded the breath test evidence and subsequent statements under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The defendant was charged with Driving Impaired and Driving Over 80 following observations of erratic driving and a roadside stop.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest, arguing a violation of section 9 Charter rights (arbitrary detention) leading to an unlawful search under section 8.

The court found the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant, despite having grounds to suspect impairment warranting a roadside screening test.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80mg.

The accused was stopped for speeding and exhibited signs of impairment.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of ss. 8 and 10(b), arguing the breath demand was not made as soon as practicable and the police failed to facilitate his right to counsel of choice through his union.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding the officer acted reasonably in the circumstances and the accused failed to be diligent in exercising his right to counsel.

The court found the accused guilty of both impaired driving and the over 80 charge.

The applicant sought to vary a lifetime section 161 prohibition order imposed in November 2007, requesting both a shortening of its duration and modifications to its terms to allow flexibility.

The applicant had been convicted in 1992 of sexually assaulting three boys and received a six-month sentence.

Between 2001 and 2006, he relapsed and committed sexual offences against five additional boys aged 8-13 years, resulting in a two-year penitentiary sentence.

The court found that while the applicant had made rehabilitative efforts including counselling and employment, successful rehabilitation had not been established.

The court declined to shorten the lifetime duration but granted limited variation to permit attendance at restricted locations when accompanied by a responsible adult with no criminal record, noting an apparent inconsistency between the prohibition and the probation order.

A pharmacist who owned and operated a pharmacy pleaded guilty to breach of trust contrary to the Criminal Code.

He admitted to submitting billings to the Ontario Drug Benefits Program for medications without proof of dispensation, receiving benefits knowing the claims could not be substantiated.

The audit revealed discrepancies in drug quantities billed versus purchased, with unsubstantiated claims totalling $155,466, though actual loss recovered was $46,506.04.

The defendant faced suspension of billing privileges and termination of his subscription agreement.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 12 months probation and specific conditions, considering the defendant's exemplary personal antecedents, community contributions, full restitution, genuine remorse, and the aberrant nature of the conduct.

The accused was charged with stunt driving and failing to comply with a roadside breath demand.

The accused conceded guilt on the stunt driving charge.

On the breath demand charge, the court found that while the accused failed to provide a suitable sample after 13 attempts, there was reasonable doubt regarding his mens rea due to evidence of potential defects in the approved screening device (ASD).

The officer had not personally tested the device, it was calibrated outside the 14-day window, and the officer lacked recent training.

The accused was acquitted of the Criminal Code charge.

The defendant was charged with stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act and with failing or refusing to comply with an approved screening device (ASD) demand under section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The defendant conceded guilt to the stunt driving charge but contested the breath demand charge.

The court found the defendant guilty of stunt driving but acquitted him of the breath demand charge due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the failure to provide a suitable breath sample resulted from the defendant's knowing misconduct or from defects in the operation of the ASD device.

The accused was charged with two counts of assaulting his domestic partner during a period of relationship breakdown.

The first count alleged an assault in the garage, which the court dismissed due to reasonable doubt arising from credibility issues and the defence's failure to cross-examine the complainant on key details.

The second count involved the accused swatting a mobile phone out of the complainant's hand while she was filming him.

The court found that while this technically constituted an assault, the force used was trifling and applied the doctrine of de minimis non curat lex to acquit the accused.