ONCJ 2016

The accused was charged with assault and disobeying a court order (non-communication bail condition) in relation to a domestic incident.

At the close of the Crown's case, the defence applied for a directed verdict (non-suit) on the breach charge.

The court considered six issues: admissibility of the original Information as evidence; whether documentary evidence of a bail order constitutes proof of the accused's knowledge; whether a voice mail message constitutes "communication" under the bail condition; whether the Crown proved the accused made the call; whether the message necessarily breached the order given other residents in the home; and whether the Crown proved the timing of the breach.

The court dismissed the defence application, finding sufficient evidence for a properly instructed trier of fact to find guilt on the breach count.

A motion for summary judgment in a child protection status review application seeking to make a child a crown ward.

The Children's Aid Society sought crown wardship with supervised access to the parents.

The mother opposed the motion and sought return of the child to her care or unsupervised access.

The child had been in care since 2012 due to neglect and had experienced multiple placement breakdowns.

The child had significant behavioral, emotional, and developmental challenges requiring specialized care.

The court found no genuine issue requiring trial and granted crown wardship with weekly supervised access to both parents.

The court also addressed sibling access issues and made reciprocal access orders to preserve the child's voice in future adoption proceedings.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a sample of breath into an approved screening device contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown established that a proper demand was made with reasonable grounds, that the accused intentionally refused to comply, and that no reasonable excuse existed.

The defence argued that incomplete information provided by the officer regarding the consequences of refusal affected the validity of the demand, vitiated proof of mens rea, provided a reasonable excuse, constituted officially induced error, and violated section 7 of the Charter.

The court rejected all defence arguments and entered a conviction.

The defendant was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device on October 30, 2014.

The defence argued that the Crown failed to establish an essential element of the offence because there was no lawful demand for the sample, contending the investigating officer lacked the necessary reasonable suspicion.

The Crown submitted that sufficient factors existed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.

The court found that the officer had both subjective and objective grounds for the demand based on the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the driving, the odour of alcohol from the vehicle, and the defendant's glossy eyes.

A conviction was entered.

The accused, a 54-year-old caregiver at a group home operated by the Reena Foundation, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 28-year-old female resident with severe developmental and mental health disabilities.

The assault occurred in the resident's locked room during overnight hours when the accused was the sole staff member on duty.

The victim suffered significant psychological harm and behavioral regression following the incident.

The Crown sought 12-14 months incarceration plus 3 years probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of 6-8 months.

The court imposed 13 months incarceration followed by 3 years probation, finding that denunciation and deterrence were paramount given the gross breach of trust, the victim's exceptional vulnerability, and the devastating impact on the victim and her family.

The accused was charged with impaired driving contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown withdrew a charge of refusing to provide a breath sample.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol based on civilian witness testimony and police observations.

While the court found a breach of section 8 regarding video surveillance of the accused using toilet facilities in police custody, it declined to grant a stay of proceedings.

The court also dismissed allegations of breaches of sections 9 and 10(b).

The accused was convicted of impaired operation.

The offender was convicted of intimidating a justice participant and breaching a recognizance following his conduct at a preliminary inquiry.

While testifying as a witness in domestic violence charges against the offender, the victim was subjected to a cut-throat gesture and threatening words by the offender.

The court imposed a sentence of eight months custody on the intimidation charge and two months concurrent on the breach charge, followed by 18 months probation with strict conditions including non-association with the victim.

DNA orders and a lifetime firearms prohibition were also imposed.

The court emphasized the seriousness of offences against the administration of justice and the need to protect witnesses and the integrity of the judicial process.

The accused pleaded guilty to criminal negligence causing death and possession of marijuana.

He drove the wrong way on a major highway while suffering from parasomnia (sleep driving), intoxicated with alcohol, cocaine, and THC, resulting in a head-on collision that killed the victim.

The court imposed a sentence of 3 years and 180 days, with credit for 1 year and 131 days of pretrial custody, leaving 2 years and 49 days to be served.

A 5-year driving prohibition and DNA order were also imposed.

The court balanced significant aggravating factors (intoxication, knowledge of sleep disorder, driving the wrong way) against mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, parasomnia as primary contributing factor, good rehabilitation prospects).

A focused trial concerning access arrangements for a child born in 2009.

The applicant (biological father) sought to terminate or reduce the respondent's (mother) supervised access.

The respondent sought unsupervised access to be gradually increased to alternate weekends and holiday access.

The child was apprehended by the Children's Aid Society in May 2014 and placed in the father's care in October 2014.

The mother had been exercising supervised access at APCO since May 2015.

The court found that while there was a positive attachment between the child and mother, the mother's behaviour during supervised visits remained problematic and not child-focused.

The court ordered continuation of supervised access with conditions requiring the mother to undergo psychiatric assessment and counselling before any future variation of the order.

The applicant mother brought a motion to strike the respondent father's pleadings, for payment of child support arrears and outstanding costs orders, and for security of costs.

The respondent opposed the motion.

The court found that the respondent had engaged in a pattern of non-compliance with court orders, misrepresentation, and manipulation of the court system throughout the high-conflict family law proceedings.

Despite the general caution against striking pleadings in family law cases involving children, the court determined this was an exceptional case warranting such relief because the Office of the Children's Lawyer was appointed to represent the children's interests.

The court struck the respondent's pleadings, ordered security for costs, and addressed a transportation issue regarding school drop-offs.

The accused was charged with sexual assault alleged to have occurred on an aircraft in flight from Minneapolis to Toronto.

The Crown sought to ground jurisdiction under section 7(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

During trial, after the complainant's evidence was completed, the court raised a jurisdictional issue regarding the accused's citizenship status.

Upon inquiry, it was discovered that the accused was a permanent resident of Canada, not a Canadian citizen.

Section 7(7) of the Criminal Code requires that consent of the Attorney General of Canada be obtained within eight days of commencement of proceedings when the accused is not a Canadian citizen.

No such consent was obtained.

The Crown conceded lack of jurisdiction.

The court found the proceedings to be a nullity and endorsed the information accordingly.

The accused pleaded guilty to six charges of voyeurism, mischief, and unlawfully in a dwelling house.

The offences involved the surreptitious videotaping and photographing of multiple victims, including coworkers, a family friend, and a sister-in-law, in various states of undress.

The accused had a prior conviction for voyeurism in 2011 and had received treatment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, yet resumed voyeuristic behaviour within a month of his probation ending.

A forensic psychiatric assessment found the accused to be at moderate risk for sexual recidivism.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 18 months, less six months credit for pre-trial custody and stringent bail conditions, resulting in 12 months to be served.

The court rejected a conditional sentence despite defence submissions, finding that the safety of the community could not be assured and that denunciation and specific deterrence required incarceration.

The accused was charged with importing cocaine and had previously elected trial by judge and jury and requested a preliminary inquiry.

At the scheduled preliminary inquiry, the accused engaged in disruptive and obstructionist conduct, presenting a self-created identification document and repeatedly demanding the judge provide identification, claiming to be a sovereign person.

The accused refused to participate in the proceedings and declared himself the highest authority in the court.

The judge found that the accused's conduct made it impossible to conduct the preliminary inquiry and that he was effectively withdrawing his request for one.

The judge ordered the accused to stand trial pursuant to section 536(4.3) of the Criminal Code.

The respondent father brought a motion to change a final support order dated September 6, 2012, seeking to retroactively reduce child and spousal support and rescind arrears.

The father claimed his income had substantially decreased after he voluntarily left his long-term employment as a store manager earning approximately $82,000 annually to accept a lower-paying position earning $32,000 per year.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal with costs.

The court found a material change in circumstances but determined the father was intentionally underemployed and imputed income to him based on his earning capacity rather than his actual reduced income.

The accused was tried on a single count of breaching condition (iv) of his recognizance of bail, which required him not to be away from his place of residence except in the company of one of his sureties.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder and released on bail with strict conditions including electronic monitoring.

The issue was whether the accused was in breach when he left his surety in a parked car outside a school and entered the building alone to speak with his former basketball coach for approximately 5-10 minutes.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting arguments that he was in compliance with the condition, that his misunderstanding constituted a mistake of fact rather than law, and that any breach was de minimis.

The applicant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine, hydromorphone, and cannabis marijuana while an inmate at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Center.

The central issue concerned missing video surveillance recordings of common areas within the facility.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging a violation of section 7 rights based on an unreasonable pre-charge delay and the loss of evidence.

The court found that the applicant's section 7 Charter rights were violated due to the negligent investigative approach and failure to preserve evidence, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead imposing a significant sentence reduction as an alternative remedy.

A trial concerning child support obligations for a child with autism spectrum disorder and chromosome 1 deletion.

The father, self-employed and previously bankrupt, sought to establish child support based on an imputed income of $30,000 per annum.

The mother sought support based on an imputed income of $40,850 per annum, retroactive child support from the child's birth, and the father's proportionate contribution to special and extraordinary expenses.

The court imputed income at $37,000 per annum, ordered ongoing child support of $325 per month, a contribution to section 7 expenses of $312 per month commencing March 1, 2016, and fixed retroactive child support arrears at $10,000 payable at $100 per month.

This is a costs decision in a child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court awarded costs to the child protection society against the respondent parents for two of three motions brought by the parents.

The parents' motion to vary a temporary care and custody order was dismissed, as was their motion to remove a psychiatrist's report from the court record.

The parents also brought six contempt motions (five against individual society workers and one against the agency itself), all of which were dismissed.

The court found the parents' conduct in bringing these motions, particularly the contempt motions based on flawed evidence and material misrepresentations, to be exceptional and warranting costs awards.

The court awarded costs of $4,222.83 on the variation motion and $7,008.04 on the contempt motions, but declined to award costs on the motion to remove the medical report.

A nine-day trial concerning a child protection application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a finding that a three-year-old child was in need of protection and sought a disposition of crown wardship without access for purposes of adoption.

The father opposed this and sought placement of the child in his care, subject to a supervision order.

The mother supported the father's plan.

The court found the child was in need of protection under section 37(2)(b) of the Act based on the mother's past parenting history, her current level of functioning following a severe aneurysm, the father's insistence on parenting with the mother, and the father's failure to cooperate with the child welfare agency.

The court ordered crown wardship without access, finding that a supervision order would be ineffective given the father's pattern of non-compliance, dishonesty, and inability to work cooperatively with professionals regarding the child's complex medical and developmental needs, including autism.

Crown appeal of an acquittal on a charge of careless driving contrary to s. 130 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act.

The respondent was operating a tractor-trailer that struck the rear of a milk truck on a rural highway.

The trial judge acquitted the respondent, finding that while the respondent's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonable driver, it did not constitute careless driving because it was merely inadvertent negligence and the respondent had been driving properly for approximately five kilometres prior to the incident.

The appellate court allowed the appeal and registered a conviction, clarifying the legal test for careless driving as a strict liability offence and rejecting the trial judge's erroneous application of additional elements.