ONCJ 2017

The defendants were charged with six counts each under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act for failure to provide necessary animal care, adequate medical attention, food and water, and permitting animals to be in distress.

Before trial, the defence brought a motion to exclude evidence pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that two search warrants violated their section 8 Charter rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found the first warrant unlawful due to deficiencies in the Information to Obtain, including an inadequate anonymous tip, lack of informant credibility assessment, and insufficient corroborative investigation.

However, the court found the second warrant lawful.

Applying the Grant test, the court admitted all evidence from both warrants, finding that exclusion would undermine the truth-seeking function of the justice system in a case involving serious animal welfare concerns.

Two young persons were charged with robbery and assault arising from an incident in a mall parking lot.

The defendant J.G.B. admitted to punching the complainant multiple times but claimed self-defence.

The court found that while there was an air of reality to the self-defence claim, the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence.

The defendant had sought out the complainant with associates to confront him over an alleged prior wrong, initiated the physical confrontation, and used disproportionate force.

The defendant was convicted of assault causing bodily harm.

The robbery charges were dismissed as the Crown could not establish beyond a reasonable doubt which defendant took the phone or that theft was the purpose of the attack.

A youth was charged with six offences relating to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm (.357 Smith and Wesson Magnum revolver) found hidden in a pillow in the basement games room of his residence.

The Crown alleged constructive possession based on circumstantial evidence, including the defendant's control of the games room, the presence of ammunition and clothing from suspects in his bedroom, and the defendant's admission of the suspects to the home following a violent robbery.

The defence argued that while the defendant may have allowed suspects to store some evidence in his bedroom, there were reasonable alternative inferences that the firearm was hidden without his knowledge, either by one of the suspects during the extended time they spent in the home or by a suspect at the moment police arrived.

The court found that while the evidence was highly suspicious and could support an inference of guilt, reasonable alternative inferences existed when the totality of the evidence was considered, including the possibility that a suspect hid the firearm without the defendant's knowledge.

A status review application under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two children previously found to be in need of protection due to parental neglect.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place the children with their father in Saskatchewan subject to a supervision order, with conditions for maternal access.

The mother opposed the application and sought the return of the children to her care.

The court determined that the children's best interests were served by remaining in the care of their father, and made a six-month supervision order with provisions for maternal access to be agreed upon by the parties.

This is an evidentiary ruling in a status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act concerning the admissibility of the views and wishes of two children (ages 14 and 11) who are represented by counsel from the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The central issue is whether hearsay statements reflecting the children's residential preferences, expressed to their legal representative and other witnesses, are admissible at trial.

The children are not being called to testify.

The mother opposes admission of this evidence, while the father, the society, and the children's counsel support it.

The court rules that such evidence is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, as it reflects the children's mental state regarding their residential preferences, which is a mandatory consideration under the statute.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defence brought a Charter application alleging that sections 10(a) and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms were breached by the conduct of the arresting officers, such that all statements and breath samples should be excluded.

The defence ultimately conceded the 10(a) issue and proceeded only on the 10(b) claim, arguing that the officers failed to account for the accused's language difficulties when explaining his right to counsel.

The court found that the officers took appropriate steps to ensure the accused understood his rights, including arranging for a Farsi-speaking officer to translate, and that the accused was afforded a meaningful exercise of his right to counsel.

The Charter application was dismissed and the breath samples were admitted as evidence.

A conviction was entered.

A first-time offender pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after unprovokedly assaulting a stranger on the street while intoxicated by alcohol and drugs.

The Crown sought 4-6 months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 9-month conditional sentence with restrictive conditions including house arrest and community service, followed by 2 years probation, along with a 3-year weapons prohibition and DNA order.

The sentencing emphasized rehabilitation prospects, the offender's youth, positive response to charges, and engagement with psychological counselling addressing underlying substance abuse and mental health issues.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm and uttering death threats against his common law partner.

The Crown sought a custodial sentence of 9-12 months.

The defence sought a conditional sentence, emphasizing the accused's Aboriginal background, systemic disadvantages, and significant rehabilitative efforts.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence to be served in the community under electronic supervision, followed by two years' probation.

The decision extensively applied Gladue and Ipeelee principles, recognizing the accused's intergenerational trauma, addiction issues, and genuine rehabilitation efforts while balancing denunciation and deterrence principles applicable to domestic violence.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm (x2), assault (x2), mischief to property, and failure to comply with a recognizance (x4).

The offences involved a pattern of violent and degrading abuse against his dating partner over several months, including physical assault, humiliation, property damage, and confinement.

The accused violated court-ordered conditions by continuing contact with the victim.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 17 months less credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a further 10 months incarceration, followed by three years probation with strict conditions including no contact and counselling.

The accused was charged with 13 offences arising from a domestic relationship with a young woman.

The Crown withdrew four charges and proceeded on five counts: common assault, two counts of assault with a weapon (knife and door), assault causing bodily harm, and unlawful confinement.

The trial involved extensive evidence of a pattern of physical and emotional abuse, isolation, drug manipulation, and threats.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and compelling, rejecting defence arguments based on myths and stereotypes about domestic violence victims.

The court convicted on all five remaining counts.

The accused, a police officer, was charged with attempting to obstruct justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

After his common-law spouse discovered embarrassing videos on an external hard drive and threatened to report alleged child pornography to police, the accused removed his laptop from their shared residence and reformatted it, deleting all prior data.

The Crown alleged this constituted an attempt to obstruct justice.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused wilfully intended to obstruct the course of justice, as there were plausible alternative inferences supported by the evidence, including that the accused reformatted the laptop to avoid further embarrassment and conflict rather than to obstruct a police investigation.

The accused was acquitted.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault following a two-day trial.

The assault involved digital penetration of the victim while she was asleep, without consent.

The offender and victim had a long-standing platonic friendship spanning over 13 years.

The Crown sought a nine-month jail sentence followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence with strict conditions including six months of house arrest with electronic monitoring, followed by a curfew, 150 hours of community service, counselling, and a two-year probation order.

A 10-year SOIRA order and DNA order were also imposed.

The accused entered a guilty plea to possession of a loaded prohibited firearm and possession of methylenedioxyethylvalerone (bath salts) for the purpose of trafficking.

The plea was entered shortly after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the mandatory minimum sentence in R. v. Nur.

The accused subsequently sought to have the plea struck, arguing ineffective assistance of counsel.

The court struck the plea, but not on the basis of ineffective assistance.

Rather, the court found that the accused did not fully understand the ramifications of entering the plea, particularly that Charter violations could no longer be argued post-plea.

The court noted the accused's tendency to hear what he wanted to hear and the difficulty in assessing his true comprehension of the proceedings.

The accused was charged with sexual interference involving a twelve-year-old girl.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally touched the complainant's breast on Danforth Avenue in Toronto.

The court found that while the accused made intentional contact with the complainant, the contact was not for a sexual purpose.

The accused was motivated by frustration with pedestrians not following his perceived rules about sidewalk usage.

The court acquitted the accused of sexual interference, finding no sexual purpose to the contact.

The court also considered whether common assault was an included offence within sexual interference and concluded it was not, as common assault requires lack of consent while sexual interference does not.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, drive over 80, and dangerous driving on December 4, 2011, with the information sworn on January 6, 2012.

Following a trial that spanned over five years, eight months, and two weeks, the accused was convicted on all counts on September 19, 2017.

The accused subsequently brought a section 11(b) application alleging a breach of the right to trial without unreasonable delay.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the total delay exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan, exceptional circumstances justified the extended timeline, including a change in counsel, the illness of a defence expert, the accused's medical difficulties during cross-examination, a gross underestimation of trial time, and the transitional nature of the case occurring largely under the pre-Jordan legal framework.

The accused was charged with four driving offences: impaired driving, drive over 80, dangerous driving, and fail to remain.

The central issue was whether the accused voluntarily consumed alcohol or whether a drug was surreptitiously placed in her drink, rendering her intoxication involuntary.

The court rejected the accused's evidence that her drink was spiked and found that her alcohol consumption was voluntary.

The court found the accused guilty of impaired operation, drive over 80, and dangerous driving, but acquitted her of fail to remain due to reasonable doubt regarding her intent to escape liability.

The defendant was charged with two offences: having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while his blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit.

The defendant admitted to being impaired and having a blood alcohol level over the legal limit.

The sole issue was whether the defendant had care or control of the motor vehicle.

The defendant entered his truck after declining a driving service, sat in the driver's seat, then moved to the passenger seat while waiting for another driving service to arrive.

The court found that the defendant had a concrete plan to obtain a ride home through a driving service and would not have changed his mind about driving.

The charge was dismissed.

This is a costs decision following a trial on a spousal support claim.

The mother was awarded $1,275 per month in spousal support commencing April 1, 2017.

The mother had served an Offer to Settle seeking $900 per month commencing September 1, 2017, which was more favourable than the trial outcome.

The father failed to accept the offer and did not file responding costs submissions.

The court awarded the mother full recovery of costs from the date of the offer and partial recovery prior to that date, totalling $14,203.30, payable within 45 days.

The applicant mother sought spousal support from the respondent father in a short marriage that ended following the father's criminal assault on the mother.

The father conceded that some spousal support was owing but disputed the amount.

The father failed to file his evidence in chief as ordered and did not testify at trial.

The court awarded spousal support of $1,275 per month for an indefinite duration, reviewable after December 31, 2021.

The court rejected the father's argument that the mother should be working or that income should be imputed to her, finding her decision to pursue English language education and vocational training reasonable given her circumstances as sole caregiver of two children, one of whom suffered emotional trauma from witnessing the father's assault.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating with excess blood alcohol following an erratic driving report.

A Charter application was brought to exclude evidence obtained following an alleged violation of the right to counsel under section 10(b).

The court found that police delayed providing the right to counsel for 26 minutes after arrest, constituting a breach.

Under section 24(2) analysis, the court excluded the breath sample evidence as the breach was serious and the impact on the accused's Charter rights was significant.

However, the court found the accused guilty of the included offence of care or control while impaired, as the Crown established the accused was in the driver's seat with keys in possession and was heavily intoxicated, presenting a realistic risk of danger.