Court of Justice

The accused was charged with impaired operation and operating a conveyance with blood alcohol exceeding 80mg after being observed acting bizarrely in a courthouse and driving erratically in the parking lot.

An Assistant Crown Attorney who witnessed the conduct in court reported his suspicions to police, who arrested the accused after observing slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, and an improperly parked vehicle.

The accused advanced Charter applications under ss. 7, 8, and 9, arguing that his compelled courthouse attendance rendered his in-court conduct protected by the principle against self-incrimination, and that the police lacked reasonable grounds for detention and arrest.

All Charter applications were dismissed: the accused's conduct was not compelled, the police stop was connected to a highway safety purpose, and the arresting officer had objectively reasonable grounds.

As the merits of the charges were conceded if the Charter applications failed, findings of guilt were entered on both counts.

Following the striking of the respondent father's parenting time claim due to repeated failure to complete a court-ordered supervised access intake process, the court addressed costs.

The mother, represented through Legal Aid Ontario, sought costs of $6,321 payable directly to Legal Aid Ontario.

The father proposed $300.

The court found the father acted unreasonably by abandoning his claim and failing to comply with multiple court orders, though the bad faith threshold was not met.

Applying the factors under subrule 24(14) of the Family Law Rules and accounting for the father's limited means through a payment schedule, the court awarded costs of $3,955 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable at $100 per month.

The court declined to make costs payable directly to Legal Aid Ontario, holding that costs are payable to the successful party and the court should not involve itself in the retainer arrangement between a litigant and legal aid.

Two co-defendants were convicted of undertaking a site alteration without a permit contrary to a municipal by-law, having imported a large quantity of gravel to a residential property and graded it to create a commercial truck parking area for a trucking business.

The court imposed fines of $7,500 each — reduced by 25% from the prosecution's request of $10,000 each to account for anticipated remediation costs — and ordered full remediation of the property.

The court rejected the defendants' argument that the driveway maintenance exemption under s. 3.4(3) of the by-law was a mitigating factor, finding it inapplicable on the facts.

The court further held that the absence of proven environmental harm is a neutral, not mitigating, factor.

The accused, a Mandarin-speaking permanent resident with rudimentary English, was charged with operating a conveyance with blood alcohol concentration at or exceeding 80 mg/100 mL.

The court found two s. 10(b) Charter breaches: an unjustified eight-minute delay before rights to counsel were read, and a failure by all officers to provide a Mandarin interpreter to communicate the informational component of her rights, despite objective indicators of her limited English proficiency being apparent throughout the encounter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found that the first two inquiries — seriousness of the breaches and impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests — strongly favoured exclusion, and that the language breach was tantamount to not providing rights to counsel at all.

The third factor favouring admission (reliability and importance of breath evidence) did not tip the balance.

Breath samples were excluded and the charge was dismissed.

The offender was convicted after trial of 24 weapons-related offences including possession of two loaded unlawful handguns, a loaded unlawful rifle, nine prohibited devices, and approximately 1,000 rounds of ammunition for the purpose of transfer, as well as eight breaches of s. 109 prohibition orders.

The offender, a repeat firearms offender with prior penitentiary terms including an equivalent 11-year sentence in 2018 for firearm trafficking, resisted the search warrant execution by initiating a lengthy armed standoff requiring deployment of the Emergency Task Force.

The court identified the new sentencing range for a repeat s. 95 offender under the post-2023 regime as 10–14 years.

A global notional sentence of 12 years was imposed, reduced by one year of Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions at Toronto South Detention Centre, and a further 2.8 years of Summers credit (1.5:1 for 685 days), yielding 8.2 years (2,993 days) remaining to serve.

A lifetime s. 109 prohibition order and a DNA order were also imposed.

The defendant was charged with speeding at 115 km/hr in a 100 km/hr zone.

The prosecution proceeded solely by filing a Part I Certificate of Offence as certified evidence under s. 48.1 of the Provincial Offences Act, calling no other evidence.

The defence challenged the prosecution's ability to proceed by certified evidence on four grounds: that the Certificate of Offence is not a certified document, that s. 48.1 POA is unavailable for non-automated-enforcement HTA offences, that the provision reverses the burden of proof and denies full answer and defence, and that the Certificate alone cannot establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected all four arguments, applying principles of statutory interpretation and legislative conflict analysis, and found the defendant guilty.

The revocation of O. Reg. 132/14, s. 1 removing the prior prohibition against certified evidence for speeding offences was determinative of legislative intent.

Following a nine-day child protection trial in which the Society's application was dismissed and the child was returned to the mother's care, the mother sought costs of $5,000 against the Society on a partial indemnity basis.

The court applied the framework from Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. K.L. and T.M. and found that the Society's conduct was patently unfair and indefensible, including: failure to disclose 400 pages of contact logs until three days before the final decision was rendered; failure to present relevant child welfare information to the court during trial; failure to increase access despite court direction and the absence of protection concerns; and failure to facilitate contact between the child and her maternal grandfather for over one and a half years.

Costs were awarded, but reduced to a nominal $500 on the basis that both Legal Aid Ontario (representing the mother) and the Society are publicly funded, and that limited public funds should remain directed toward the child's continued care rather than past legal fees.

The defendant in a Building Code Act prosecution brought a second disclosure motion seeking field notes, memoranda, and investigators' files from the City of Toronto.

The first disclosure motion had been denied as a fishing expedition.

However, the defendant subsequently obtained documents through a Freedom of Information request that supported potential defences of officially induced error, statute of limitations, and legal non-conforming use.

The court found the defendant satisfied the onus to establish relevance and granted the second disclosure motion, noting the City did not respond to oppose it.

The respondent in a family law parenting dispute sought costs of $4,050 after the applicant failed to file a conference brief or attend a scheduled case conference.

The court found the conference was unproductive due to the applicant's non-attendance and awarded costs under subrule 17(18) of the Family Law Rules.

The court reviewed the respondent's legal bills from California and Ontario counsel retained on a limited scope basis, restricting costs to work related to this step in the case.

Applying an hourly rate of $125 for the self-represented respondent's preparation time and allowing reimbursement for Ontario counsel fees, the court ordered $2,500 in costs payable forthwith.

Sentencing of a first offender convicted at trial of aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, uttering a threat to cause death, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The accused attacked his sister's husband with a box cutter knife in the family home, inflicting deep cuts requiring 70 stitches, and also cut his own father who intervened.

The accused absconded and was sentenced in absentia after his counsel was removed from the record.

The court found the stated intent to kill was a significant aggravating factor beyond the mere utterance of a death threat.

While acknowledging the Crown's proposed range of 3.5 to 4 years was below what the circumstances warranted, the court imposed a global sentence of 4 years' custody, with ancillary orders including DNA, a firearms prohibition, a no-contact order, and restitution of $26,338.

Costs decision following the dismissal of a family law application and urgent motion regarding a child.

The self-represented applicant had commenced proceedings in Woodstock despite the child's habitual residence being in Sarnia, where a Superior Court proceeding was already scheduled.

The respondent's offer to settle — proposing withdrawal of the motion on a without-costs basis — met the technical requirements of the Family Law Rules.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable, including failing to file a reply affidavit, proceeding despite jurisdictional deficiencies, and failing to attend court.

Despite the applicant's limited financial means, the court awarded $4,500 in costs payable in monthly instalments, rather than the full indemnity of $7,242.17 sought.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a house arrest term of a release order contrary to s. 145(5)(a) of the Criminal Code.

He was found alone at 4:30 a.m. near Yonge and Dundas in Toronto, holding an open alcoholic beverage.

The defence brought a directed verdict application, arguing the Crown failed to negate exceptions in the release order permitting travel to and from work.

The court dismissed the application, relying on R. v. Blaker to hold the exceptions were not essential elements of the offence.

On the merits, the court found the Crown proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as no evidence supported any applicable exception to the house arrest condition.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 offences.

At trial, the defence filed a Charter application alleging a breach of the right to counsel under s. 10(b), seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence under s. 24(2).

The Crown moved to summarily dismiss the application for non-compliance with Rule 3.1(1) of the Ontario Court of Justice Criminal Rules, which requires service at least 30 days before the hearing.

The application was served only 3 days before trial, 27 days late.

The court granted the Crown's motion, holding that the late filing by the defence law firm was not justified and that adjourning the trial was not an appropriate alternative given the impact on court resources and the culture of complacency the Supreme Court directed trial judges to curtail.

Sentencing of a military veteran found guilty of three counts of assaulting his ex-wife on separate occasions in 2020 and 2022, and one count of mischief.

The court found that the accused's 20 years of Canadian Forces service, including multiple combat deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan as a Special Forces member, his documented traumatic brain injuries and PTSD, and the significant collateral consequences of a conviction on his military career and veteran benefits, constituted exceptional mitigating circumstances.

The court held that the accused's moral responsibility was lessened by service-related concussions and PTSD.

Despite the seriousness of intimate partner violence and the predominance of denunciation and deterrence in such cases, the court granted a conditional discharge with 18 months of probation, finding that a custodial sentence was unnecessary in these unusual circumstances.

Criminal trial on seven intimate-partner-violence counts, including multiple assaults, two choking/suffocation allegations, assault with a weapon, and uttering death threats.

Applying the W.D. framework, the court rejected the accused's blanket denials after finding them incompatible with two contemporaneous recordings and police evidence about the absence of visible injuries.

The court held that inconsistencies in the complainant's sequencing on minor details did not undermine the reliability of her core allegations, which were corroborated by objective evidence.

Findings of guilt were entered on counts one through six, while one assault count was dismissed for absence of evidence.

The court sentenced an offender convicted of assault with a weapon and two breaches of probation committed while under existing supervision.

The sentencing analysis addressed proportionality under ss. 718.1 and 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, including reduced moral blameworthiness linked to FASD and accepted Indigenous ancestry, while recognizing significant public safety concerns arising from knife-related violence in a public transit setting.

The court held that denunciation and deterrence had limited but continuing force, and that a purely rehabilitative disposition was not fit given the offence gravity and limited structure in the offender’s circumstances.

A short custodial term, constrained by Indigenous and neurodevelopmental factors, followed by lengthy probation with treatment-oriented and protective conditions, was imposed.