Court of Justice

The accused was charged with operation of a motor vehicle while impaired and having a blood alcohol content in excess of eighty milligrams percent while operating a motor vehicle.

The offences allegedly occurred on October 28, 2012 in the Town of Caledon.

The accused struck a tree in a residential area after proceeding through a stop sign.

The court dismissed a Charter Section 8 application challenging the arrest and breath sample demand, finding sufficient grounds existed.

The court found the accused guilty on both charges, relying on expert toxicology evidence projecting a blood alcohol concentration of 165 to 215 milligrams percent at the time of driving, corroborated by the circumstances of the accident and police observations.

A judicial stay was imposed on the impaired charge pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The accused was charged with assault contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code and with breaching a probation order by failing to keep the peace and be of good character.

The Crown alleged the accused assaulted the complainant on April 11, 2013.

The court found the accused's evidence credible and consistent, while the Crown's witnesses demonstrated signs of collusion in their statements to police.

The assault charge was dismissed due to reasonable doubt.

However, the court found the accused guilty of breaching his probation order by committing mischief under section 430 of the Criminal Code when he deliberately knocked the complainant's coffee out of her hand or off the armrest of the couch.

The defendant was charged with obstructing a license plate contrary to section 13(2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The evidence showed that the defendant's license plate had faded blue paint, making the numbers difficult to read from a distance.

The Justice of the Peace found that while faded plates should be replaced, the statutory language of section 13(2) contemplates active obstruction by the defendant, not passive deterioration through normal wear and tear.

The court dismissed the charge, finding no evidence of deliberate obstruction.

The court noted that had it been wrong on the law, it would have suspended the sentence given the defendant's financial situation and the fact that he replaced the plates immediately upon being informed of the issue.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results taken outside the two-hour statutory presumption period, requiring expert toxicological evidence to establish the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving.

The central issue was whether the accused engaged in "bolus drinking" (rapid consumption of large quantities of alcohol shortly before driving), which would render the expert's extrapolation unreliable.

The court rejected the accused's testimony regarding his drinking pattern as incredible and evasive, finding no credible evidence of bolus drinking.

The court convicted the accused based on the toxicologist's expert opinion that the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was between 130 and 175 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

A costs endorsement following a custody and access trial.

The father sought full recovery of costs from June 29, 2012 in the amount of $5,186.60, while the mother requested no costs be ordered.

The court granted custody to the father with extensive specified access to the mother.

The court awarded costs to the father as the successful party, but reduced the amount to $3,600 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules and the mother's limited financial circumstances.

The mother was permitted to repay the costs at $150 per month starting October 1, 2013.

This is a costs decision following a trial of motions to change custody and support.

The mother was successful in obtaining sole custody of the parties' eight-year-old child, securing her preferred access arrangement, and obtaining retroactive child support.

The father's requests for expanded decision-making authority and more extensive access were dismissed.

The court awarded costs to the successful party, considering the factors under the Family Law Rules, including the parties' conduct, the failure to make settlement offers, and the reasonableness of legal fees and time spent.

This is a costs decision arising from a motion to change a consent custody order.

The mother sought supervised access for the father and other modifications, while the father sought joint custody.

The litigation was acrimonious and protracted over approximately sixteen months, with both parents making unreasonable claims.

The mother was partially successful, the father was partially successful, and the matter ultimately settled.

The court awarded costs to the mother despite divided success, based on the father's unreasonable conduct, his failure to make a timely settlement offer, and his pursuit of an unjustifiable claim for joint custody.

The court rejected the father's argument that inability to pay should shield him from a costs award.

The defendant was charged with assaulting the complainant on three occasions in November 2011 and March 2012.

The third count was dismissed on consent.

The trial involved conflicting accounts of two incidents: one on November 22, 2011 involving an alleged slap, and another on November 23, 2011 involving alleged grabbing and striking.

The complainant testified the defendant used threats regarding her immigration sponsorship to control her.

The defendant denied the assaults and claimed the complainant initiated physical contact.

The court found the Crown had not discharged its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant on both remaining counts.

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.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that two children were in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act due to risk of physical harm.

The mother consented to the finding through an agreed statement of facts.

The father contested the application.

The court found overwhelming evidence that the children were at risk of physical harm while in the father's care, including: the father's misuse and abuse of prescription medications (particularly oxycodone), his involvement in a dangerous driving incident while impaired by drugs with the children in the vehicle, his pattern of "doctor shopping" to obtain controlled substances, and his physical and verbal abuse of the mother in the presence of the children.

The court made a finding that the children were in need of protection and ordered a parenting capacity assessment to proceed.

The respondent father brought a motion to vary a temporary custody and access order made on November 13, 2012, seeking to implement recommendations from an Office of the Children's Lawyer report dated June 19, 2013.

The father sought joint custody with expanded access.

The applicant mother opposed the motion, disputing factual findings in the report and arguing that joint custody was not workable given the parties' inability to communicate and cooperate.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the father failed to establish a material change in circumstances sufficient to warrant variation of the temporary order.

The court held that the Office of the Children's Lawyer report, while containing useful observations, did not provide an adequate basis for implementing joint custody or significantly expanded access at the interim stage, particularly given the parties' ongoing hostility and lack of meaningful communication.

An appeal of a destruction order issued against a dog that had bitten two children in the face, causing catastrophic injuries including near loss of an eye and severe facial lacerations.

The appellant consented to the destruction order at the original hearing but subsequently appealed on multiple grounds, including claims of incompetent counsel, procedural unfairness, and that his consent was invalid due to confusion.

The appellant also presented expert reports post-appeal suggesting the dog could be rehabilitated.

The court dismissed the appeal, finding the consent was informed, voluntary, and unequivocal, and rejecting the expert reports as inadmissible hearsay presented without proper notice to the Crown.

A motion to change custody and parenting arrangements concerning a six-year-old child, Zara Karima Demirdache.

The father sought to transfer the child from a French-language public school (École élémentaire Pierre-Elliott-Trudeau) to either a French Immersion program or an English-language public school, citing his inability to communicate in French and concerns about exclusion from the child's education.

The mother opposed the transfer, seeking to maintain the child's enrollment at the French school.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the child was thriving at the French school, had developed strong friendships, was making excellent academic progress, and that the father had successfully maintained meaningful involvement in the child's education despite the language barrier.

The court ordered the child to remain at the French school for the 2013-2014 academic year and imposed conditions requiring the mother to provide translations of report cards and advance notice of school events.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown filed a Notice of Application for Increased Penalty, which would have mandated a minimum four-month custodial sentence.

The court considered whether the Crown's exercise of discretion in filing the Notice violated Section 7 of the Charter by failing to properly consider Gladue principles applicable to Aboriginal offenders.

The court found that the Crown's decision to file the Notice before receiving the Gladue report constituted a violation of Section 7 of the Charter, as it did not demonstrate proper consideration of the offender's unique circumstances as an Aboriginal person.

The Notice was set aside.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with strict conditions, including a curfew, substance abuse treatment, and participation in rehabilitative programming, along with a 12-month probation order and a three-year driving prohibition.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation and Over 80 following a motor vehicle stop in Milton on May 26, 2012.

The defence brought a section 8 Charter application challenging whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving and demand breath samples.

The court found that the arresting officer's grounds were insufficient, relying on inconsistent and unreliable evidence from the officers regarding driving concerns.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence and dismissed both charges, emphasizing the importance of police note-taking and the proper role of coach officers in investigations.

The offender pleaded guilty to common assault and sexual assault.

The Crown proceeded summarily, enabling the defence to seek a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an 18-month conditional sentence followed by 30 months of probation.

The sentencing decision balanced denunciation and deterrence against rehabilitation, considering the offender's significant cognitive limitations, developmental disabilities, mental health issues, and a comprehensive support plan through St. Leonard's Community Services.

The court found this to be an exceptional case warranting a conditional sentence despite the serious nature of the offences.

The father applied for sole custody of the parties' child, while the mother cross-applied for sole custody and child support.

The court found the father's evidence unreliable, noting his history of conflict, inappropriate parenting choices, and deliberate underemployment.

The court rejected the Office of the Children's Lawyer's recommendation to limit the mother's access, finding it unsupported by the evidence and detrimental to the child's relationship with his half-sister.

The mother was awarded sole custody, and the father was ordered to pay child support based on an imputed income of $52,000 per year, along with retroactive arrears.

The applicant father sought sole custody of a child born in April 2005, initially seeking joint custody with status quo access but changing his position at trial.

The respondent mother sought sole custody and child support.

The court awarded sole custody to the mother, finding that the father's evidence was unreliable and evasive, with significant concerns about his parenting choices including alcohol use, exposure to violent video games, allowing the child to handle firearms, and inadequate supervision.

The mother, while having some issues with conflict management, demonstrated a stronger commitment to the child's welfare and maintained a stable primary caregiving relationship.

The court also imputed income to the father for child support purposes based on deliberate underemployment and ordered arrears and ongoing support.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in his system.

The trial judge acquitted on the impaired charge but reserved judgment on the over 80 charge due to a defence argument regarding the failure of the breath technician to perform a self-test on the Intoxilyzer 8000C machine.

The court examined whether deviation from the Centre of Forensic Science training manual recommendations regarding self-tests created reasonable doubt about the machine's proper operation.

The court found that the machine's internal self-diagnostic tests were sufficient to establish proper working order and that the failure to perform a manual self-test did not raise a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on the over 80 charge.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving a motor vehicle without a license and without a valid validation sticker on the license plate.

The appellant raised arguments based on religious freedom, freedom of movement and association, and various constitutional and international human rights instruments.

The trial Justice of the Peace found the appellant lacked sincere religious belief and convicted him.

On appeal, the court found the Justice of the Peace erred in law by applying an incorrect three-part test for assessing sincerity of religious belief and by failing to provide meaningful reasons addressing the appellant's Charter arguments.

However, the court upheld the conviction, finding that even if the appellant had sincere religious beliefs, regulation of highway driving is a justifiable limit on Charter rights under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The appeal was dismissed.