ONCJ 2012

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol following a rear-end collision in Brampton.

The Crown alleged the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption.

The court found that while the police had reasonable grounds to make a breath demand based on the totality of circumstances, the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt due to the equivocal nature of the evidence, particularly the absence of overt signs of intoxication such as slurred speech or significant balance problems.

However, the court found the accused guilty of driving with excess blood alcohol based on the breath test results.

The court also dismissed the accused's Charter application regarding trial delay, finding the delay was reasonable under the Morin factors.

This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought a finding that two children, J.B. (born 2004) and T.B. (born 2008), were in need of protection and an order making them Crown wards for the purpose of adoption.

The mother, S.S.B., opposed the application and sought return of the children to her care under Society supervision.

The court found both children in need of protection based on physical harm inflicted by the mother, risk of future physical harm, and risk of emotional harm.

The court ordered both children to be made Crown wards and rejected the mother's plan for return to her care, finding that the mother's long-standing parenting deficiencies could not be adequately addressed and that Crown wardship with a view to adoption best served the children's interests.

The defendant was charged with three counts of assault—one against his stepson and two against his wife.

The Crown alleged that during the five or six days the defendant and his newly arrived wife (sponsored through an arranged marriage) lived together in Canada, he engaged in abusive behavior including pushing, grabbing, and verbal abuse.

The defendant denied all allegations, asserting that he had invested significant funds to bring his wife and stepson to Canada and had no motive to harm them.

The court found the complainant's evidence concerning but problematic, particularly regarding her motives for reporting to police.

The stepson's evidence was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies with his police statement and concerns about potential coaching.

The defendant's evidence, corroborated by his cousin's testimony, was not seriously shaken on cross-examination.

The court acquitted the defendant on all remaining charges.

The respondent brought a summary judgment motion seeking custody of two of the parties' three children.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing that the children's preferences should be explored at trial and that cross-examination was necessary.

The court granted the motion, finding that sufficient evidence regarding the children's best interests was already available through the Children's Lawyer's reports and observations.

The court awarded custody of Louis and Nikolas to the respondent, noting the children's consistent preferences and the applicant's failure to facilitate access to the respondent.

The applicant brought a motion for summary judgment seeking sole custody of the child with primary residence continuing with the applicant, alternate weekend access for the respondent, shared holidays, child support based on imputed income, and costs.

The respondent opposed the motion and requested a trial on all issues.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted the summary judgment motion.

The court awarded sole custody to the applicant, confirmed alternate weekend access for the respondent, established a detailed holiday sharing arrangement, set child support at $160 per month based on an imputed annual income of $20,000, and fixed arrears at $2,000 as of September 1, 2012.

The accused was charged with two counts under Section 253(1) of the Criminal Code: operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The charges arose from an incident on December 23, 2010, when the accused's vehicle was found in a ditch at the intersection of Britannia and Tremaine Roads.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial judge found that the accused was in care or control of the motor vehicle and was impaired by alcohol at the time of arrest.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The trial involved a combined Charter voir dire and trial.

The defence challenged whether the officer had reasonable grounds to demand breath samples under section 254(3) of the Criminal Code, arguing the approved screening device was not proven to be in proper working order.

The defence also challenged whether the breath samples were obtained as soon as practicable under section 258(1)(c)(ii) of the Criminal Code.

The court found the officer was credible and experienced, the approved screening device was functioning properly, reasonable grounds existed for the breath demand, and the samples were obtained as soon as practicable given all the circumstances.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The defendant was charged with selling a new home not previously occupied without being registered as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The defendant purchased an incomplete home by power of sale in October 2009 and re-listed it for sale in February 2010 without ever occupying it.

The home was sold to the purchaser in April 2010 prior to obtaining an occupancy permit.

The court found that the defendant was a vendor within the meaning of the Act and should have been registered with Tarion.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the home was exempt from the Act because the original builder had declared it exempt on the building permit application.

The court applied a contextual and purposive interpretation of the Act, emphasizing that the defendant never occupied the home and re-sold it prior to completion and obtaining an occupancy permit.

The accused was found sleeping in his running pickup truck on a residential street in Mississauga and was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and care or control of a motor vehicle with excess blood alcohol.

The Crown led evidence from a civilian complainant and three police officers, along with expert toxicology evidence.

The defence called no evidence.

The court found that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe the accused was impaired despite the absence of an odour of alcohol, based on the totality of circumstances including the vehicle's unusual parking position, the difficulty in waking the accused, slurred speech, red eyes, and poor balance.

The breath demands were found to be lawful despite some inaccuracies in how information was communicated between officers.

The court concluded that the accused's ability to be in care or control of the motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption.

A custody and access trial involving two young children born to unmarried parents who cohabited at the paternal grandparents' home before separating in January 2011.

The father sought sole custody with alternate weekend access to the mother; the mother sought sole custody with specific weekly access and child support from the father.

The court awarded sole custody to the father based on his more stable lifestyle, superior parenting regime, and demonstrated commitment to the children's welfare, while granting the mother significant access on alternate weekends and holidays.

The court found that the father's structured parenting approach was more beneficial than the mother's less supervised approach, and that the children responded better behaviorally in the father's care.

The court terminated the father's child support obligation as of September 1, 2012.

The applicant mother sought temporary custody of the child with supervised access to the father, while the respondent father sought temporary custody with weekend access for the mother.

The father also brought a motion to transfer the case from Toronto to Peel.

The court found that the child had thrived in the father's primary care for several years and that the mother's allegations of abuse were not proven on a balance of probabilities.

The court granted temporary custody to the father, imposed strict conditions on the mother's access, and transferred the case to Peel where the child ordinarily resides.

Defendants in a private prosecution for regulatory offences arising from bird collisions with their buildings brought a mid-trial application for production of internal records from FLAP (Fatal Light Awareness Program), a non-profit environmental advocacy organization that had monitored bird strikes at the defendants' property for over a decade.

The defendants sought FLAP's records regarding its cooperation with Ecojustice, the environmental advocacy group prosecuting the case, arguing the documents were relevant to claims of unreasonable search and seizure, abuse of process, and witness credibility and reliability.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defendants could not advance Charter claims against private actors, that their abuse of process claim lacked an air of reality, and that their credibility and reliability arguments were speculative and unsupported by evidence.

A youth was convicted of four counts of sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, and exposing his genital organs against a young male victim.

The trial spanned nine days and involved testimony from the victim, the accused, and five other witnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of all charges relating to the victim but acquitted him of charges relating to a second complainant due to insufficient proof of force.

At sentencing, the Crown sought custody followed by probation, while the defence opposed custody.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of four months in closed custody followed by two months of community supervision, with an additional year of probation, a DNA order, and an 18-month weapons prohibition.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the primary residence of his 12-year-old son from the respondent mother's home to his own.

The child had consistently expressed a strong desire to live with his father for almost three years.

The court found that the mature adolescent's clear and consistent wishes constituted a material change in circumstances.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the court granted the motion, allowing the child to relocate to the father's primary care while maintaining joint custody and generous access for the mother.

The mother brought a motion for a temporary order requiring the child to attend Springfield Preparatory and Nursery School commencing September 2012.

The child, age 10, had been diagnosed with a mild learning disability and mild ADHD and was struggling academically in a French immersion program at his current public school despite receiving an Individual Education Plan and private tutoring.

The father opposed the motion, proposing an alternative public school with specialized resources.

The court granted the mother's motion, finding that the private school with smaller class sizes and a supportive teaching approach would better meet the child's educational and emotional needs, particularly given the public school system's historical inability to address the child's needs.

The accused pleaded guilty to four criminal charges relating to his involvement in a large-scale, organized fraud scheme targeting the Business Development Bank of Canada.

The total loss to the BDC was $14 million, with the accused's involvement resulting in approximately $850,000 in fraudulent loans.

The accused received approximately $50,000 for his participation.

The court imposed a two-year conditional sentence with onerous restrictive terms, followed by three years of probation and a $50,000 restitution order.

The sentencing balanced the serious nature of the fraud and the need for deterrence and denunciation against the accused's peripheral role, lack of criminal record, genuine remorse, early guilty plea, and willingness to cooperate with authorities.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg/100mL following an erratic driving incident on the Don Valley Parkway that resulted in a collision.

An off-duty police officer observed the driving and made a citizen's arrest.

The Crown sought to prove impairment based on driving behaviour and breath test results showing readings of 202 and 192 mg/100mL.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the arrest, the detention in police cells, and the strip search that followed.

The court found the arrest lawful but acquitted on the impairment charge due to insufficient evidence of actual impairment beyond the breath readings.

The court found violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms regarding the detention and strip search but declined to stay proceedings, instead finding the accused guilty of the over 80 charge.

The accused was charged with break and enter and commit robbery with a firearm, robbery with a firearm, assault with a weapon, uttering death threats, possession of a firearm while subject to a weapons prohibition order, and three counts of breach of probation.

The Crown proceeded by indictment and the accused elected trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused committed a robbery.

While the complainant's testimony contained significant inconsistencies regarding the details of the alleged robbery, the court found the accused guilty of break and enter and commit assault, uttering threats, and breaching two probation orders.

The court dismissed the robbery charges due to insufficient evidence and credibility concerns with the complainant's account.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving a motor vehicle on Highway 401 while performing a stunt, specifically driving at a rate of speed greater than 50 kilometres per hour over the posted speed limit, contrary to Section 172(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appellant raised two main grounds of appeal: that the verdict was unreasonable and unsupported by evidence, and that the Justice of the Peace failed to properly apply the W.D. test to credibility assessment.

The appellate court upheld the conviction, finding that the evidence was sufficient to support the findings regarding both identity and speed, and that the trial judge properly considered credibility and applied the appropriate legal standards.