ONCJ 2016

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol with over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on March 8, 2015, in St. Catharines.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) during the roadside investigation and arrest process, arguing that delays in making the approved screening device demand and providing right to counsel information breached the "forthwith" requirement.

The court found Charter breaches but admitted the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would not be necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The Crown proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a conviction.

The accused pleaded guilty to making available child pornography contrary to section 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing hearing spanned multiple dates over three years and involved contested applications by the accused seeking a stay of proceedings.

The accused challenged the Crown's election to proceed by indictment and its pursuit of a sentence exceeding the mandatory minimum, arguing abuse of process and Charter violations.

The court dismissed all applications for stay, finding no Charter breaches or abuse of process.

The court imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment (the mandatory minimum) with credit for time served at 1.5 days per day, followed by 15 months probation, and mandatory ancillary orders including DNA, forfeiture, and SOIRA registration.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on first degree murder for the stabbing death of Milan Segota, with the defence conceding second degree murder.

The Crown also sought committal on aggravated assault for injuries to Aimee Novak, with the defence conceding assault with a weapon.

The court examined whether circumstantial evidence supported inferences of planning and deliberation necessary for first degree murder.

The court found insufficient evidence of planning and deliberation, distinguishing the case from situations involving armed ambush or premeditated knife acquisition.

The defendant was committed to stand trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude breath test results, alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter based on insufficient grounds for arrest and the arbitrariness of the arrest.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired operation and should have instead demanded an approved screening device.

The court excluded the breath samples under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The court also found reasonable doubt regarding the impairment charge based on the limited objective evidence.

The accused was acquitted of both charges.

An appeal of two convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace fall.

The appellant corporation was convicted of failing to ensure a worker was protected by a guardrail system and failing to ensure a worker was protected by fall protection equipment.

The trial judge found the corporation guilty despite accepting evidence that it had installed compliant guardrails, provided appropriate safety equipment, implemented clear safety policies, conducted training, performed audits, and disciplined non-compliance.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge misdirected herself on the law regarding the actus reus of the offences and the proper test for the due diligence defence.

Convictions were set aside and acquittals substituted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while having over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood.

Following a roadside screening device failure, the accused was arrested and requested access to French-speaking duty counsel.

A two-hour delay occurred before a French-speaking duty counsel became available.

The court found this delay constituted a breach of the accused's section 10(b) Charter right to retain and instruct counsel without delay.

Applying the Grant test, the court excluded the breath sample evidence as admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The charge was dismissed.

A home invasion robbery occurred at a Toronto townhouse complex on March 3, 2016.

Three armed robbers entered a residence, demanded money at gunpoint, and fled with cash, a phone, and chocolate milk.

The robbers were observed on surveillance footage entering another unit in the complex.

Two defendants were arrested approximately six hours later at that unit.

The Crown sought to commit them for trial based on resemblance evidence and their presence at the unit where the robbers fled.

The court found that the identification evidence amounted only to resemblance, not identification, and that critical gaps in surveillance evidence prevented reasonable inferences connecting the defendants to the robbery.

Both defendants were discharged.

At a preliminary inquiry, the court determined whether three accused should be committed to stand trial on charges of human trafficking, prostitution-related offences, assault, and uttering threats.

The complainant testified that she engaged in sex work from December 2014 to April 2015 under the control of the three accused.

The court analyzed the essential elements of trafficking in persons under section 279.01 of the Criminal Code and prostitution-related offences under sections 286.1 to 286.3.

The court committed all three accused to stand trial on various counts, finding sufficient evidence of control, direction, and influence over the complainant's movements and earnings for exploitative purposes.

The court discharged certain counts where insufficient evidence existed.

The accused was convicted at trial of assault upon his 11-year-old son.

The assault occurred when the accused lost his temper after the child refused to leave a video game to attend a family barbecue, resulting in the accused dragging the child, throwing him against a wall, and holding him by the cheeks and neck.

The Crown sought a four-month jail sentence followed by 18 months of probation, while the defence sought a conditional discharge.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months of probation, finding that neither custodial nor discharge sentences were appropriate given the aggravating factors balanced against mitigating circumstances.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and unlawful confinement following an incident at the complainant's home.

The Crown's case relied on the complainant's testimony, corroborating evidence from her boyfriend regarding her emotional state immediately after the incident, and text messages sent by the accused the day after the alleged assault.

The accused testified that the sexual contact was consensual.

The court found the accused guilty of sexual assault but acquitted him of unlawful confinement, finding that while the Crown proved non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt, it failed to establish the requisite intent to confine.

The accused was charged with serious offences including kidnapping, forcible confinement, assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, extortion, conspiracy, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of property obtained by crime, and drug possession.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused proposed release on house arrest with his mother as primary surety, supported by his uncle and girlfriend.

The court found the Crown met its onus on both grounds and ordered detention.

The court found the accused played a mid-level role in a planned, prolonged kidnapping and torture scheme, and that the proposed sureties lacked sufficient knowledge and control over the accused despite their good intentions.

A young person was charged with assault, criminal harassment, and sexual assault of a complainant.

The defence brought a motion under section 278 of the Criminal Code seeking production of diary excerpts from the complainant.

The Crown had mistakenly disclosed the diary excerpts to the defence.

The court applied the framework from R. v. Shearing to determine that once the information had already been produced, the section 278 regime for compelled production of third-party records was no longer applicable.

The court dismissed the section 278 application but ordered re-disclosure of the excerpts pursuant to the Crown's Stinchcombe disclosure obligations, without prejudice to the Crown raising admissibility objections based on probative value versus prejudicial effect.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while her blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit and operating a motor vehicle while her ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of her arrest and the seizure of breath samples.

The court found that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to believe the accused was impaired by alcohol, relying instead on an ambiguous admission by the accused that she would "blow over" without clarifying what threshold she meant.

The court concluded that the officer conducted an unreasonable search and seizure and arbitrarily detained the accused in violation of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The breath sample evidence was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter, and both charges were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with uttering a threat to cause bodily harm, possessing a knife for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and breaching a probation order.

The Crown proceeded summarily on all three counts.

The case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

The defendant was found guilty of all three offences based on the totality of the evidence, including the specific nature of the threat, the defendant's proximity to the victim's residence, his possession of a knife shortly after the incident, and the unique identifying characteristics (name "Peter" with mother "Rebecca") that connected him to the perpetrator.

The accused, a taxi driver, was charged with sexual assault against a woman with Cerebral Palsy during a specialized transportation service on July 1, 2013.

The complainant alleged the accused intentionally touched her breasts while ostensibly loosening her seatbelt.

The accused testified he accidentally grazed her chest while losing his footing while attempting to untangle a tangled seatbelt.

The trial judge found both witnesses credible but their accounts were in stark opposition.

With no independent witnesses, forensic evidence, or strong testimonial inconsistencies, the judge could not reach a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt and entered an acquittal.

The accused pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud over $5,000 contrary to Section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The offender, a repeat fraudster with a prior 2010 fraud conviction, defrauded three victims of a combined total of approximately $134,569.53 through false representations regarding access to IPOs.

The offender targeted friends and acquaintances at a golf club and a woman he met on a dating website, exploiting her romantic interest.

The court imposed a global sentence of two years less a day with three years' probation, finding the offender to be an unrepentant conman with no genuine remorse despite his guilty plea.

A child protection matter involving three children who had spent the majority of their lives in foster care.

The applicant society sought to determine whether the children should be returned to their parents or made Crown wards.

All parties signed minutes of settlement agreeing to return the children to their parents' care with a six-month supervision order.

The court, while expressing reservations about the parents' readiness, approved the settlement based on the paramount purpose of the Child and Family Services Act and the statutory obligation to preserve the cultural identity of Indigenous children.

The offender pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual assault involving minors.

The offences occurred over an extended period and involved multiple victims who were under the offender's authority as a coach and mentor.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 10 months for one count, 8 months as a conditional sentence for another count, and 5 months for the third count, all to be served consecutively.

The court emphasized that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the breach of trust, grooming behaviour, and vulnerability of the victims.

The offender was also subject to DNA sampling, sex offender registration for 20 years, a 2-year probation order with conditions including sex offender counselling, and a 10-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to Section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act and driving with a suspended licence contrary to Section 53(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant pleaded guilty to the suspended licence charge.

At trial, the court found the defendant guilty of careless driving after determining that the defendant's prolonged and repeated focus on a bee that entered the vehicle, rather than on the roadway and driving, fell below the standard of care expected of a reasonable, average, careful driver.

The defendant's inattention led to the vehicle veering onto a gravel shoulder, overcorrecting multiple times, and ultimately rolling three to four times, resulting in two fatalities.

The court found that while the initial swatting at the bee was a reflexive action, the continued focus on the bee beyond that initial moment constituted careless driving.

The accused was charged with three counts of fraud over $5,000 and one count of possession of property obtained by fraud.

The Crown alleged that between January 2012 and September 2013, the accused orchestrated a sophisticated fraud scheme involving the deposit of worthless cheques into credit card accounts to artificially inflate credit limits, followed by coordinated purchases of high-end merchandise from Home Depot stores across the Greater Toronto Area.

The accused, self-represented with assistance of amicus curiae, claimed he had permission from cardholders to use their cards and that he was merely a middleman facilitating transactions for gamblers and others who needed quick cash.

The trial judge found the Crown had proven all essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and rejected the accused's explanations as inherently unconvincing and lacking logic.

The court also dismissed a section 11(b) Charter application regarding delay in trial, finding exceptional circumstances justified the time taken.