ONCJ 2017

The accused was charged with knowingly being in unlicensed possession of a restricted firearm, occupation of a motor vehicle knowing that there is a restricted firearm in that vehicle, possession of a loaded restricted firearm without authorization or license, breach of a firearms prohibition order, and breach of probation.

Police conducted surveillance based on information from confidential informants and observed the accused carrying a knapsack containing a firearm.

The accused claimed he had no knowledge of the firearm and suggested that either a friend or an unknown person at a party had placed it in his bag without his knowledge.

The court found the accused's testimony to be inconsistent and not credible, and rejected the defence of innocent possession as speculative and contrary to human experience.

The accused was found guilty on all counts.

The defendant was charged with criminal harassment contrary to s.264(1) of the Criminal Code and distribution of intimate images contrary to s.162.1 of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from a relationship that ended in September 2015.

The Crown alleged the defendant criminally harassed the complainant through persistent electronic communications after she made clear she did not wish further contact, and distributed intimate images to her family and friends without consent.

The defendant denied responsibility, claiming they agreed to remain friends and that many communications were not directed at the complainant.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts based on credibility assessments, circumstantial evidence, and objective documentary evidence including text messages and email distribution patterns.

The appellant appealed an acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with an Order to Comply issued under the Building Code Act.

The respondent, a property owner, had leased commercial premises to a tenant who performed unauthorized construction.

The respondent received an order to comply but argued it did not apply to them as the landlord.

The trial court acquitted the respondent based on lack of collateral attack and due diligence.

On appeal, the court found the respondent was engaged in an impermissible collateral attack but upheld the acquittal based on the trial court's finding of due diligence, which was reasonably supported by the evidence.

The offender was convicted after trial of sexual assault contrary to Section 271 of the Criminal Code for forcing his cellmate to perform fellatio on him without consent on three occasions while incarcerated at the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre on November 5, 2015.

The Crown sought a sentence of three and a half to four years penitentiary, while the defence sought 12 to 18 months jail.

The court imposed a sentence of five years imprisonment, finding that denunciation and specific and general deterrence were paramount.

The court rejected the defence argument for enhanced credit beyond the statutory 1.5 to 1 ratio under Section 719(3.1), finding that the offender's segregation was a result of his own criminal conduct and that he had refused alternatives offered by the institution.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit following a single-vehicle collision on November 21, 2015.

The Crown's case relied on breath analysis results and expert toxicology evidence.

The defence raised Charter challenges regarding the admissibility of pre-arrest statements, the validity of the breath demand, and the right to counsel.

The court found no Charter breaches and admitted all evidence.

The accused was convicted on both counts based on breath readings showing a blood alcohol concentration of 88 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and expert evidence establishing impairment.

The defendant was tried on two counts: sexual assault and sexual interference with a person under the age of 16 years, alleged to have occurred on May 23, 2016.

The defendant, the step-grandfather of the complainant, was accused of inappropriately touching the complainant on her breast and thigh while she sat on a couch in his living room.

The Crown presented evidence through a video-recorded statement by the complainant and testimony from the complainant and her mother.

The defendant testified that he did not commit the alleged acts and provided an alternative account of events.

The court found that while the complainant appeared truthful, her account left too much room for ambiguity and misunderstanding, and that the Crown had not met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The charges were dismissed.

A ruling on a voir dire concerning the admissibility of Approximate Regulation Limit (A.R.L.) maps created by the Halton Region Conservation Authority.

The prosecution sought to admit these maps as evidence to establish the regulatory jurisdiction of the Authority over properties at 7459 Auburn Road, Milton, Ontario.

The defendants challenged admissibility on hearsay grounds.

The court determined that the A.R.L. maps, created pursuant to Ontario Regulation 162/06, constitute part of the regulation itself and are therefore admissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act as copies of regulations.

The accused was charged with having care or control of a motor vehicle after consuming alcohol in excess of the legal limit.

She was found asleep in the driver's seat with the key in the ignition.

After failing a roadside screening device test, she was arrested and provided with duty counsel.

However, when asked by the breath technician if she was satisfied with the legal advice received, she indicated she was not satisfied and did not understand the advice.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) of the Charter because the accused was not informed of her right to a second consultation with counsel.

The breath readings and statements were excluded under section 24(2), resulting in a not guilty verdict.

A costs decision following a two-day trial in a family law matter concerning custody, access, and child support.

The applicant sought costs of $40,000 (including legal fees of $34,398, disbursements of $1,000, and HST of $4,602).

The court found the respondent acted in bad faith throughout the litigation, which lasted six years.

However, the court determined that full recovery of costs was not appropriate given the complexity and duration of the matter, and the applicant's own conduct contributed to delays.

The court applied Rule 18(14) regarding settlement offers and found the applicant's offer of settlement met the required conditions.

The court awarded costs of $33,000, payable within 60 days.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault arising from a stabbing incident outside a bar in Oshawa.

The accused stabbed two brothers multiple times with a knife, causing serious injuries including punctured lungs, collapsed lung, and cardiac injury.

The court imposed a sentence of nine years imprisonment, less pre-trial custody credit, with concurrent sentences on both counts.

The sentencing emphasized deterrence and denunciation as paramount principles, given the unprovoked nature of the attacks, the accused's extensive criminal history involving violence, his possession of a weapon while intoxicated, and the premeditated manner in which the knife was concealed and deployed.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle on a highway without insurance, failing to affix a valid number plate, and failing to wear a seatbelt.

The defendant claimed his pickup truck was a self-propelled implement of husbandry (SPIH) and therefore exempt from these requirements.

The defendant also raised Charter rights concerns regarding detention and the right to counsel.

The court found that the defendant's Charter rights were not infringed during the routine traffic stop and that the defendant failed to meet his burden of proving the vehicle qualified for the SPIH exception.

The court convicted the defendant on all three counts.

The Director, Family Responsibility Office brought a default proceeding against the respondent for failure to honour a child support order requiring monthly payments of $682.00 per month.

The respondent accumulated arrears of $55,005.00 over approximately 80 missed payments since 2010.

The respondent claimed inability to pay due to unemployment resulting from his criminal record and notoriety, and disputed the existence of a trust fund found by the original trial judge.

The court found the respondent failed to rebut the presumption of ability to pay, failed to provide valid reasons for non-payment, failed to demonstrate acceptance of responsibility, and failed to provide required financial disclosure.

The court imposed a warrant of committal for 90 days imprisonment or until arrears were paid, plus 3 days imprisonment for each future default.

The accused, an HIV and HSV positive individual, was charged with three counts of aggravated sexual assault for non-disclosure of HIV status to three complainants, one count of sexual assault causing bodily harm for allegedly transmitting HSV to one complainant, and two counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown alleged the accused engaged in intimate relationships without disclosing his viral status.

The trial focused on whether non-disclosure vitiated consent and whether there was a realistic possibility of HIV transmission.

The court found that while the accused failed to disclose his HIV status, his undetectable viral load for more than six months negated any realistic possibility of transmission, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court's decision in Mabior.

The court also found insufficient evidence to prove causation of the HSV infection.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with four indictable offences: sexual assault, sexual interference, inviting a child to sexually touch the accused, and threatening death.

The complainant, a child, testified that the accused, his uncle, sexually assaulted him repeatedly over approximately 18 months while the child was between 7 and 8 years old.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial judge found the complainant credible and rejected the accused's denials as internally and externally inconsistent.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, emphasizing the compelling nature of the child's evidence and the accused's implausible testimony regarding constant supervision and an open bedroom door.

The accused was charged with over 80 (impaired driving) following a RIDE stop.

The Crown sought to introduce breath sample evidence.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the evidence on Charter grounds, alleging breaches of sections 8, 9, and 10 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court found that the accused's Charter rights were breached in three respects: (1) the manner of detention in the police cruiser for the roadside screening test was not reasonably necessary; (2) the accused was not adequately facilitated in her right to consult with counsel of her choice, as the police policy effectively channeled her toward duty counsel; and (3) the accused was subjected to an unjustified strip search.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence based on the cumulative effect of these breaches and the serious impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests.

A youth was convicted of sexual assault and forcible confinement of a victim that occurred on March 6, 2016, when the youth was 17¾ years old.

At sentencing, the Crown sought 9 to 12 months open custody followed by 12 to 18 months probation.

The defence sought a deferred custody and supervision order (DCSO) of 4 to 6 months followed by probation, or alternatively, 3 to 4 months open custody.

The court found that the offence caused serious bodily harm to the victim, rendering a DCSO unavailable under section 42(5) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court imposed 8 months custody followed by 4 months community supervision, with a 12-month probationary period.

A sentence review was ordered for December 1, 2017, to assess the youth's progress and potential amelioration of the sentence.

A family law trial concerning custody and access of an 11-year-old child following the separation of the parents.

The parties agreed to joint custody but disputed primary residence.

The father sought primary residence, citing the mother's interference with access and her night-shift work schedule.

The mother sought to maintain primary residence, relying on the status quo and her historical role as primary caregiver.

The court granted primary residence to the father, finding that despite the mother's long-standing caregiving role, the child's consistent preference to live with his father, the mother's deliberate obstruction of access, and concerns regarding the child's academic performance and safety while the mother worked nights warranted a change from the status quo.

The court emphasized the importance of the child's voice and applied "Katelynn's Principle" in considering the child's mature and thoughtful views.

This is a judicial interim release hearing under the Youth Criminal Justice Act for an 18-year-old accused charged with 14 counts including unauthorized possession of a firearm, possession for the purpose of weapons trafficking, careless storage of firearms and ammunition, possession contrary to a prohibition order, and unlawful possession of explosives.

The accused had recently pleaded guilty to robbery and weapons offences and was placed on probation and a weapons prohibition order, but was arrested two weeks later with a homemade firearm, ammunition, and related materials in his bedroom.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court granted bail with strict conditions, finding that the accused met his onus on both grounds, emphasizing the untested nature of the firearm, the accused's demonstrated rehabilitation efforts while in custody, and the strict supervision plan proposed by his sureties.