Court of Justice

A youth was charged with eight counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and exposing genital organs involving two male complainants.

The trial examined allegations spanning from 2006 to 2010.

The court found the defendant guilty of all charges with respect to one complainant (RG), who was incapable of consenting due to age and was physically forced to participate in sexual acts.

The court acquitted the defendant on all charges with respect to the other complainant (MR), finding that while sexual activity occurred, it had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant forced MR to participate.

The decision addresses credibility issues arising from police interview techniques, parental influence, and the vulnerability of young witnesses.

The accused was found unconscious in grass near a white Mercedes with the engine running in a parking lot entrance.

The Crown charged the accused with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was intoxicated by alcohol to a high degree.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved care or control through circumstantial and limited direct evidence from surveillance video.

The court applied the test from R v. Villaroman regarding circumstantial evidence and found that the Crown's theory—that the accused drove the vehicle to the parking lot exit, then collapsed—was the only reasonable inference on the whole of the evidence.

Alternative theories, such as the accused never being in the car or being a passenger, were found to be unreasonable given the totality of circumstances.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to robbery of two sex workers.

The defendants lured the victims to a hotel room under false pretenses and, following a planned and deliberate attack, robbed them of money and personal items while inflicting serious injuries including permanent scarring and internal damage requiring plastic surgery.

The Crown sought two years less one day in custody, while the defence sought 90 days intermittent.

The court imposed 9 months in custody followed by two years probation, balancing the serious nature of the planned robbery against the defendants' otherwise good character, genuine remorse, and rehabilitation efforts.

The respondent father sought to proceed to trial within the statutory 120-day timetable under Rule 33 of the Family Law Rules in a child protection matter.

The applicant society and respondent mother sought an order to extend the timetable under subrule 33(3).

The father argued the court lacked jurisdiction to make such an order at a settlement conference without prior notice.

The court found jurisdiction existed based on the father's prior representations in his settlement conference brief that he would not pursue trial and would work cooperatively with the society.

The court extended the timetable, finding it was in the best interests of the children to allow time for ongoing therapy and parental assessments before proceeding to trial.

A youth was charged with assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and possession of a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace following a stabbing incident.

The accused claimed self-defence.

The court found the accused not guilty of the assault charges due to reasonable doubt regarding who struck first with a knife, but found the accused guilty of possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The court held that while the accused's subjective purpose was defensive, the objective circumstances did not establish that the threat was completely inescapable, and carrying a concealed weapon into a public space presented a danger to the public peace.

The defendants brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking to stay proceedings on the grounds that their right to be tried within a reasonable time had been breached.

The total delay from arrest to anticipated trial conclusion was 21 months and 6 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling by 3 months and 6 days.

The Crown conceded there was no defence delay, waiver, or discrete event.

The court found the case was not particularly complex and that the Crown's decision to join multiple defendants together late in the proceedings, and subsequent partial severance, created unnecessary delay.

The court granted the application and stayed the proceedings.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking, trafficking in cocaine, and possession of property obtained by crime following his arrest on August 31, 2016.

York Regional Police conducted surveillance of a vehicle involved in a series of shoplifting incidents, which led to the observation of a suspected drug transaction between the accused and another individual.

The accused was arrested and found in possession of approximately 26 grams of cocaine and $5,615 in cash.

The defence raised Charter arguments regarding the lawfulness of the arrest, the manner of search, and the late filing of the Report to a Justice.

The trial judge rejected the defence arguments and found the accused guilty on all counts.

A young person was charged with robbery, breach of recognizance, and failure to comply with a condition of recognizance arising from an alleged robbery on June 17, 2018, in Toronto.

The Crown relied on identification evidence from the victim and "prior acquaintance recognition" evidence from a detective constable based on CCTV surveillance footage from two locations.

The trial judge found that the victim's identification was tentative and qualified, and that the detective's testimony, while admissible, was based on minimal prior familiarity with the accused and unsupported by the poor-quality video evidence.

The court concluded that the Crown failed to prove the identity of the perpetrator beyond a reasonable doubt and dismissed all counts.

Two young persons were jointly charged with the robbery of three victims at a plaza near a high school in Ajax on May 14, 2012.

The Crown's case against D.F. rested primarily on eyewitness identification evidence from all three victims, who identified him from a photo array and in court.

The Crown's case against R.L. was based on his similarity to one of the assailants, surveillance video showing him returning to school from the robbery location within minutes, and his possession of a stolen wallet belonging to one of the victims.

Both defendants were found guilty.

The court rejected D.F.'s counsel's arguments regarding the frailties of identification evidence and found the victims' identifications reliable and credible.

The court rejected R.L.'s explanation that he had found the wallet and innocently retained it, finding his testimony not credible and concluding he had concealed the wallet in his jacket lining.

The accused was charged with multiple drug and firearms offences following a search of his apartment unit.

At trial, the defence challenged the validity of the search warrant and alleged violations of the accused's Charter rights.

The court upheld the validity of the search warrant based on information from two confidential sources, finding the information was compelling, credible, and reasonably corroborated.

However, the court found a serious breach of the accused's s. 10(b) right to counsel when police questioned him about hazards in the apartment after he had asserted his right to counsel.

The incriminating statement was excluded under s. 24(2).

On the substantive charges, the court found that while the circumstantial evidence could support an inference that the accused lived in the unit, there remained a reasonable and logical alternative explanation that he was merely a guest.

The court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had the requisite knowledge and control of the contraband, and all charges were dismissed.

This is a preliminary ruling on the admissibility of documents in the possession of the accused in a sexual assault trial involving a young person.

The court considered whether text messages, social media communications, and photographs require an application under sections 278.92 and 276 of the Criminal Code before being adduced at trial.

The court examined the definition of "record" under section 278.1 and provided guidance on the notice requirements for bringing applications to admit sexual history evidence and private records.

The court concluded that certain communications and intimate materials require pre-trial vetting, while declining to make definitive determinations on the limited record before it.

This is a costs decision arising from a blended Hague Convention and child protection hearing.

The father successfully obtained an order for the return of the child to Minnesota, establishing that the child had been wrongfully removed from her habitual residence.

The mother had secretly removed the child from the father's custody in Minnesota and brought her to Canada.

The court found the child was in need of protection but ordered her return to Minnesota with conditions, including supervised access and a transition plan.

The father sought costs of $194,055.33 against both the mother and Justice for Children and Youth, claiming full recovery based on bad faith.

The court awarded partial costs to the father against the mother only, finding no bad faith but unreasonable conduct in the unlawful removal of the child.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that a child born prematurely to parents with significant histories of child protection involvement was in need of protection, and seeking an order for extended society care with no parental access.

The mother initially opposed the motion but ultimately consented to the protection finding and extended society care disposition.

The central issue became whether the mother should have access to the child.

The court ordered supervised access, finding it was in the child's best interests despite the mother's significant parenting limitations and the child's secure placement with a foster mother.

The decision provides important guidance on the application of the new access test under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which represents a significant shift from the prior restrictive approach to access for children in extended society care.