ONCJ 2013

The applicants sought child support from the respondent parents for E.G., who was 18 years old at the time of trial and had been living with Janet McGonegal since March 2011 when she was 16.

The applicants sought retroactive child support from April 1, 2011, ongoing child support, and coverage of extraordinary expenses for E.G.'s continued education.

The respondents argued that E.G. had voluntarily withdrawn from their parental control at age 16 and therefore were not obligated to provide support under section 31(2) of the Family Law Act.

The court found that E.G. had withdrawn from parental control voluntarily and that the withdrawal was not involuntary.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The accused was charged with impaired driving by drug, dangerous driving, and breach of an undertaking.

The accused admitted to the actus reus of both impaired and dangerous driving but raised the defence of involuntary intoxication, claiming he did not knowingly consume Clonazepam.

The court found that while involuntary intoxication can undermine the mens rea for impaired driving and modify the objective standard for dangerous driving, the accused failed to raise a reasonable doubt about voluntary consumption.

The court found the accused's testimony unreliable due to significant memory gaps and credibility concerns, and noted that evidence of powdery residue in the accused's nostrils was consistent with voluntary drug ingestion.

The court convicted on all three counts.

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

The accused, unrepresented, defended on the basis that his Charter rights were violated through racist treatment by police.

The court rejected this defence.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to establish that breath samples were taken "as soon as practicable" as required by law.

The court identified three periods of inadequately explained or unexplained delay totalling approximately 20 minutes, which undermined the Crown's ability to rely on the presumption of identity.

Without evidence of the accused's blood alcohol level at the time of driving, the court found the accused not guilty.

The defendant brought a preliminary motion to quash the Certificate of Offence for speeding under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds that the inclusion of 'R79' in the code box on the certificate was prejudicial and violated the presumption of innocence.

The court found that the code notation did not deface the charging document, did not prejudice the defendant's ability to make full answer and defence, and did not violate the presumption of innocence.

The application to quash was denied.

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.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision in which the Crown sought committal on seven counts arising from the theft of lottery tickets at a convenience store and the subsequent fraudulent claim of a $12.5 million lottery prize.

The accused were charged with theft of lottery tickets, possession of stolen property, fraud against the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation, possession of proceeds of crime, and money laundering.

The Crown's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence derived from lottery transaction records showing a pattern of "split ticket" thefts where free play tickets generated from original tickets were validated at different locations and times.

The defence argued the evidence was speculative and that alternative explanations existed.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit all three accused to trial on all seven counts.

Media organizations sought to unseal search warrant Information to Obtain (ITO) documents and related judicial authorizations from Project Traveller, a major criminal investigation.

The Crown sought to maintain certain redactions based on investigative technique privilege and wiretap disclosure restrictions under s. 193 of the Criminal Code.

The court ordered the unsealing of the May 31, 2013 ITO in its current redacted form with a temporary publication ban pending further submissions from counsel for the accused.

The court also ordered the Crown to provide redacted copies of remaining Project Traveller ITOs within 30 days of completing Stinchcombe disclosure to the accused, with a detailed chart explaining redactions.

Media organizations sought an order to terminate or vary a sealing order issued by Justice Marin on May 31, 2013, which sealed documents relating to search warrants executed by the Toronto Police Service between May 31 and June 14, 2013.

The Crown sought a six-month adjournment to vet the Information to Obtain (ITO) before disclosure.

The court found the Crown's proposed timeline unreasonable and contrary to the open court principle protected by the Charter.

The court ordered the Crown to provide a redacted version of the May 31 ITO on a counsel-only basis by August 27, 2013, with a return hearing scheduled for no later than September 12, 2013.

This is a costs endorsement following a family law trial in which the respondent (mother) obtained sole custody of the parties' children and child support of $1,004 per month.

The applicant (father) was self-represented at trial.

The mother sought full recovery costs of $30,178.60, while the father sought no costs award.

The court awarded costs to the mother but at a significantly reduced amount due to procedural deficiencies in her costs claim and the requirement that costs be proportional to the amount in issue and the outcome.

The court considered the mother's offer to settle, the parties' litigation behaviour, and the divided success on certain issues.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving following an incident on the 401 highway in north Toronto on March 7, 2012.

The complainant and defendant provided directly conflicting accounts of the driving behaviour, each accusing the other of reckless and dangerous conduct.

The court applied the W.(D.) framework for assessing credibility in cases of testimonial conflict.

While the complainant's evidence was found to be more persuasive, the court determined that the defendant's account could reasonably be true and that a reasonable doubt existed as to the defendant's guilt.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and over 80 following a motor vehicle accident at a construction site intersection.

The sole issue at trial was the identity of the driver.

The Crown relied on eyewitness testimony identifying the accused as the driver based on distinctive thick black-framed glasses.

The defence argued the accused's friend was the driver.

The court found conflicting evidence between the eyewitness account and the consistent testimony of both the accused and his friend, resulting in reasonable doubt as to identity.

The accused was acquitted.

The defendant, Reliable Wood Shavings Inc., was charged with four offences under section 25 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from the death of Glen Gallinger, an employee who was asphyxiated while attempting to dislodge sawdust from a silo at a customer's facility.

The court found that the defendant failed to take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances to protect its worker.

The defendant's prescribed procedure was unsafe and impractical, the written instructions were defective, and the defendant failed to address the inherently dangerous conditions at the worksite despite having knowledge of the hazards.

The court found the defendant guilty on counts 2, 3, and 4, with count 1 stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

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.

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.

Appellants appealed sentences imposed for trading in real estate without registration under the Real Estate and Business Brokers Act, 2002.

The trial court imposed fines of $2,500 per count on each defendant (totalling $20,000 each).

The appellants challenged the fines as harsh and excessive.

The appellate court found the trial court erred in principle by failing to inquire into the defendants' financial circumstances and imposed fines that were clearly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences.

The court allowed the appeals and imposed substantially reduced sentences.

The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level over 80 mgs on May 24, 2012.

The trial was scheduled for September 3, 2013.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The court found that the total delay was approximately 15 months, with the Crown responsible for at least 2.5 months of delay due to delayed disclosure and institutional delay accounting for 11.5 months.

The court determined that the institutional and Crown delay was unreasonable and granted the application, imposing a stay of proceedings.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and care or control with excess blood alcohol following an incident on December 23, 2011.

The Crown relied on observations of weaving and running a red light, along with physical indicators such as bloodshot eyes and alcohol odour, to establish impairment.

The defendant was acquitted of the impaired charge due to strong countervailing evidence of non-impairment, including coordination, clear speech, and controlled movements.

However, the defendant was convicted of the over 80 offence based on breath technician evidence of readings of 184 and 170 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood, with the court finding the Intoxilyzer 8000C was properly functioning and the external printer accurately recorded the results.

The respondent mother brought a motion to change parenting and child support terms established in prior orders.

The parties had a joint custody arrangement with the child's primary residence with the father, and the mother was ordered to pay $211 per month in child support.

After the mother returned to Ontario in 2009, the parties agreed to an equal time-sharing arrangement in March 2010.

The mother sought retroactive support from the father, claiming he earned significantly more income than disclosed.

The father opposed retroactive support and proposed only ongoing support of $500 per month.

The court found the father had improperly diverted income through his corporation and unreasonably deducted expenses.

The court imputed income to both parties and ordered the father to pay $1,050 per month ongoing support and $20,000 in retroactive support, with the mother's arrears rescinded.

The accused brought a voir dire application to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at a motorcycle club clubhouse.

The accused challenged the validity of the telewarrant on multiple grounds, including failure to demonstrate impracticability of personal appearance, lack of full and frank disclosure, misleading statements, and insufficient grounds.

The court found that the Information to Obtain contained materially misleading and inaccurate statements, particularly regarding surveillance activities and complaints history.

The court determined that without the problematic paragraphs, insufficient grounds remained to justify the warrant's issuance.

Under the section 24(2) Charter analysis, the court excluded all evidence seized.