Court of Justice

The applicant, Christopher Nigro, brought a Charter application under ss. 8 and 24(2) to challenge the validity of search warrants issued for his residence, vehicle, and electronic devices following a carjacking incident.

The defence argued that the Information to Obtain (ITO) lacked sufficient grounds and that a second warrant application to a different Justice of the Peace after an initial partial refusal constituted "judge-shopping." The court reviewed the ITO under Garofoli principles, finding that the affiant provided full, frank, and fair disclosure.

The court affirmed that a second warrant application is permissible and does not constitute "judge-shopping" if the subsequent Justice of the Peace is aware of the prior application and considers the matter de novo.

The court concluded that there were credibly-based probable grounds to issue the warrants, including for electronic devices, based on the totality of the evidence and reasonable inferences regarding post-offence conduct.

The application was dismissed.

The accused, a 25-year-old first-time offender, pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance causing death and failure to remain at the scene of an accident.

The accused struck and killed a 94-year-old pedestrian while speeding in a busy tourist area, then fled the scene in panic.

The court weighed the serious aggravating factors of the driving conduct and flight against the mitigating factors of the accused's youth, positive background, genuine remorse, and guilty pleas.

Emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence while applying the principle of restraint for youthful first offenders, the court imposed a total sentence of 21 months in custody and a five-year driving prohibition.

The Defendant, Jeremiah Campbell, applied to withdraw his guilty plea for possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking, entered prior to sentencing.

The prosecution opposed the application.

The court, applying the principles that a guilty plea must be voluntary, unequivocal, and informed, found that while the plea was unequivocal and informed, and the defendant's testimony was largely unconvincing, a miscarriage of justice would result if the plea were maintained.

The court exercised its residual discretion, considering the defendant's age, first-offender status, potential penitentiary sentence, existence of triable Charter issues, and the defendant's belief in his factual innocence.

The application to strike the guilty plea was granted.

The accused, Estime Ndayihezagiye, was charged with five firearms-related offences after a search warrant executed on his residence located a restricted semi-automatic handgun and ammunition in a Gucci satchel hanging on his bedroom door.

The prosecution relied on constructive possession, arguing the accused had knowledge and control of the items.

The defence proposed two alternative inferences: that a parent planted the satchel or that it belonged solely to his 12-year-old brother.

The court dismissed both alternative inferences as speculative or unreasonable, finding that the accused, an 18-year-old adult, had knowledge and control of the sophisticated weapon and its accessories given its location and the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty on all five counts.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and possession of MDMA.

During a traffic stop, the original driver moved to the backseat and persuaded the highly intoxicated accused to move into the driver's seat.

The court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of care or control under section 320.35 of the Criminal Code, as it was equally likely he entered the driver's seat to put the vehicle in motion.

The court also found that his actions created a realistic risk of danger.

The accused was found guilty of both charges.

The children's aid society sought a finding that two young children were in need of protection and a dispositional order placing them with their father subject to supervision.

The mother had been hospitalized under the Mental Health Act after a crisis and subsequently refused treatment for her diagnosed mental health issues.

The court found the children were in need of protection due to the mother's untreated mental illness and lack of insight.

The court placed the children in the care and custody of the father, subject to a nine-month supervision order to ensure the children's special needs were met and to facilitate the mother's access.

This trial determined retroactive and ongoing child support obligations.

The court established the separation date as July 2019 and set the presumptive date for child support at December 11, 2019, declining earlier retroactivity due to the payor's significant pre-application contributions.

Income was imputed to the payor for ongoing support, acknowledging that pending criminal charges (later acquitted) were a valid, non-self-induced barrier to employment during a specific period.

Arrears were calculated based on CERB income, and ongoing support was ordered based on a reasonable imputed income post-acquittal.

The Children's Aid Society of Algoma sought summary judgment in a child protection matter, requesting a finding of need for protection, deemed custody for the mother, and supervised access for the father.

The mother consented to the Society's proposals.

The father agreed to the protection finding and custody for the mother but contested the requirement for supervised access to default to a supervised access centre.

The court granted the Society's motion, finding the child in need of protection, awarding custody to the mother, and ordering supervised access for the father with the contested default provision, citing the history of domestic violence and the father's probation.

The applicants sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a breach of their s. 11(b) right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court found the total delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The Crown failed to rebut the presumption of unreasonableness by establishing exceptional circumstances, as the delay was primarily due to the Crown's failure to properly assess and streamline the co-accused prosecution, rather than case complexity or the COVID-19 pandemic.

Consequently, all charges against the applicants were stayed.

A group of media organizations applied under section 119 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for access to the unredacted youth criminal court records of eight young persons charged with second degree murder.

The Crown and the young persons opposed the application, citing the young persons' heightened privacy interests and fair trial rights.

The court found that while the media had a valid interest in the records, granting access to the entire unredacted file at this early stage was not desirable in the interest of the proper administration of justice due to the risk of irreversible harm from inadvertent dissemination of private information.

The court granted partial access to redacted records, including the charging informations and bail release orders, with identifying information removed.

The accused, L.M., pleaded guilty to child pornography offences.

The Crown sought to prove an unproven historical allegation of sexual assault involving M.L., the daughter of L.M.'s then-partner, as an aggravating fact for a potential long-term offender designation.

The court heard testimony from M.L. and her mother, N.L., and considered the challenges of assessing an adult's testimony about childhood events, including inconsistencies over time.

Applying principles from R. v. W.(R.) and R. v. A.M., the court found M.L. to be a credible and reliable witness, concluding that the sexual assault allegation was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, despite minor inconsistencies attributed to the passage of time and the victim's age at the time of the incident.

The defendants, Richard Jakovac and Emilia Gruyters, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The net delay was calculated at 17 months and 10 days, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the defence took meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings.

Despite the COVID-19 backlog, the court concluded that this simple 2-day case took "markedly longer" than it reasonably should have due to institutional delay, specifically a lack of judicial resources.

A stay of proceedings was ordered.

This trial concerned an application for spousal support on both compensatory and non-compensatory bases.

The respondent conceded entitlement, leaving the quantum and retroactivity as the primary issues.

The court found the respondent lacked credibility, intentionally underemployed, and misrepresented his financial situation and relationship with a new partner.

The court imputed the respondent's income based on a three-year average and the applicant's income, ordering indefinite spousal support at the high end of the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines.

Retroactive support was also ordered from the date of the application.

The accused, B.M., pleaded guilty to one count of sexual assault on E.N., committed between November 2015 and November 2016, when E.N. was 15 years old and B.M. was 33-34.

The incidents involved fellatio and vaginal intercourse, occurring at the family business where B.M. was a long-time employee and E.N. worked.

The court found B.M. to be in a position of trust and engaged in grooming behavior.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 2 years less one day, while the defence proposed 12-15 months.

The court, emphasizing the gravity of sexual offenses against children and the high moral culpability of the offender, imposed a sentence of 36 months (3 years) custody, along with a 10-year s. 109 order, a DNA order, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a s. 743.21 order, exceeding the Crown's submission.

Shawn Atkinson pleaded guilty to possession for the purpose of trafficking carfentanil into a detention centre.

The court considered the extreme danger of carfentanil and the aggravating nature of smuggling drugs into a custodial setting, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence.

However, the court also balanced these principles with the offender's youth, difficult upbringing, and prospects for rehabilitation, as per the principles for youthful offenders.

Given the lack of specific precedent for carfentanil trafficking, the court imposed a sentence at the high end of the Crown's requested range.

The respondent, Mr. Sterling, brought a motion to change a prior order regarding child support, section 7 expenses, and parenting time.

The applicant, Ms. Smith, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed Mr. Sterling's request to reduce child support, finding his financial disclosure inconsistent and lacking credibility, and ordered him to pay an additional $200 per month towards significant arrears.

The court clarified section 7 expenses, terminating old fixed amounts and establishing a new sharing mechanism for daycare and future agreed-upon activities.

The parenting schedule was revised by agreement of the parties.