ONCJ 2017

A youth was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and breach of probation following a stabbing incident at a party.

The Crown alleged the defendant stabbed the victim unprovoked in a bedroom.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting she was engaged in a physical altercation with the victim both inside and outside an apartment, during which she grabbed a knife from the kitchen and used it defensively after being thrown to the ground and punched.

The trial judge found the victim's evidence largely unreliable due to his serious injuries and drug and alcohol consumption.

The defendant's account was substantially corroborated by the only eyewitness.

The court found no evidence of intent to kill for the attempted murder charge and determined the Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt for the aggravated assault charge.

All charges were dismissed.

The applicants sought disclosure of handler's notes, investigative plans, and payment records relating to a confidential informant used in obtaining a search warrant.

The Crown opposed the disclosure, arguing the request was a fishing expedition.

The court held that while the handler's notes do not normally form part of the investigative file when the handler is not the affiant, the applicants met the "reasonable possibility" or "reasonable likelihood" test for disclosure.

The court found that on the face of the Information to Obtain, reasonable questions arose as to whether the claimed confidential informant was actually a police agent, which is a material issue on a Garofoli application.

The court ordered disclosure of the handler's notes subject to claims of blanket confidential informant privilege or editing, but declined to order disclosure of investigative plans.

The applicant brought a Charter section 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay in a child pornography case.

The applicant was arrested on May 14, 2015, with trial scheduled to conclude on April 13, 2017—approximately 23 months later, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application for procedural non-compliance.

The court dismissed the Crown's motion and granted the applicant's section 11(b) application, finding that the delay was presumptively unreasonable and that the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption.

The court found that the Crown's failure to disclose critical forensic evidence until the eve of the preliminary inquiry constituted a breach of disclosure obligations that could not be excused as an exceptional circumstance.

A stay of proceedings was ordered.

A youth charged with sexual offences brought a section 11(b) Charter motion alleging violation of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The court applied the new Jordan framework, which established an 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.

The applicant argued for a lower 12-month ceiling for youth cases.

The court found that charges involving one complainant exceeded the presumptive ceiling and could not be justified under either the Jordan framework or transitional principles, resulting in a stay of proceedings.

Charges involving a second complainant were found to be within acceptable delay parameters and proceeded to trial on the merits.

The respondent brought an urgent ex parte motion for temporary sole custody of the child, alleging that the applicant had denied him access and was failing to meet the child's educational and emotional needs.

The applicant opposed the motion and raised concerns about the respondent's removal of the child from Toronto in violation of a prior court order.

The court found a material change in circumstances and granted the respondent temporary sole custody, finding that the applicant had failed to address the child's complex needs, including trauma from sexual assault, stress-related auditory hallucinations, learning difficulties, and potential gender identity issues.

The court terminated the respondent's child support obligation and ordered further submissions regarding the applicant's access to be heard on a return date.

The Crown sought to admit three out-of-court statements attributed to the deceased complainant, Michael O'Drane, under the principled exception to the hearsay rule established in R. v. Khan.

The statements consisted of: (1) a comment overheard by a witness when O'Drane spoke to paramedics; (2) oral statements made to a police officer at the hospital; and (3) a videotaped interview conducted four days after the alleged assault.

The court rejected all three statements as failing to meet the threshold reliability requirement, finding insufficient process-based and content-based indicia of reliability.

The court emphasized that ultimate inferences from corroborating evidence cannot be used to establish the reliability of hearsay statements.

The respondent father brought a motion seeking to stay or suspend enforcement of child support provisions in a separation agreement filed with the court, to stay enforcement of a support deduction order, and to direct the Director of the Family Responsibility Office to hold collected monies pending resolution of his application to change child support.

The applicant mother opposed the motion and sought immediate release of collected funds to satisfy arrears.

The central dispute concerned whether the family had continued to reside together after the separation agreement was signed in 2007, which would affect the father's support obligations.

The court found a genuine entitlement issue requiring trial and ordered a partial release of funds to the mother with the balance held pending final determination.