ONCJ 2018

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference with a child under 16 years of age, allegedly occurring between March 5 and March 27, 2017.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the testimony of the eight-year-old complainant, who was seven years old at the time of the alleged offences.

The trial judge found that the Crown had not proven the offences beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused on both counts.

The judgment focused on credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's testimony, including inconsistencies regarding when the assaults allegedly occurred, the complainant's failure to disclose to her parents despite having the opportunity to do so, and the absence of material details regarding the alleged assaults.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol (over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood).

Paramedics observed a transport trailer truck weaving on the Queen Elizabeth Way and the 427 highway on February 22, 2017, and called 911.

Police located the defendant in the truck at a truck park in Vaughan.

The defendant was arrested and subjected to breath testing.

The Crown proved care and control of the motor vehicle, that breath tests were taken as soon as practicable, and that the breath readings (122 and 114 milligrams) were properly obtained and admissible.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, driving with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg per 100 ml of blood, and Highway Traffic Act offences related to being a novice driver with a blood alcohol level exceeding zero.

The defence raised Charter violations regarding the arrest and the right to counsel, alleging language barriers.

The court found that the police had objective grounds to arrest the accused based on the serious single-vehicle collision, witness observations of reckless driving, and indicia of impairment.

The court also found no breach of the right to counsel, determining that special circumstances related to language comprehension did not exist.

On the merits, the court found overwhelming evidence of impairment and identified the accused as the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control and "over 80" under the Criminal Code.

The Crown alleged the accused was intoxicated and in the driver's seat of a vehicle in a parking lot.

The defence challenged the arrest on Charter grounds and argued the presumption of care or control was rebutted by the accused's testimony that he had decided not to drive home.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, rejected the Charter challenges, and convicted the accused on both counts, finding that the presumption was not rebutted and that actual care or control was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

A bail application by a young person charged with possession of a firearm while prohibited under section 51 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act and three counts of breach of a youth sentence imposed two days prior.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary ground, arguing substantial likelihood of committing a serious offence (drug trafficking).

The court found the Crown's case on the firearm charge weak, lacking direct evidence and relying on a poor-quality photograph.

The court rejected detention, finding it would improperly substitute for child protection and mental health measures, contrary to the YCJA's preference for release and its rehabilitative principles.

The accused was charged with 26 offences related to fraudulently obtaining and possessing multiple driver's licences under various aliases.

The Crown's case relied primarily on photo-comparison technology and visual identification from driver's licence photographs and booking hall videotapes to establish that the accused was the same person responsible for obtaining licences under seven different names.

The court found that the identification evidence was insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, as no police officer who had investigated or dealt with the accused in connection with prior incidents was able to identify him as the person they had encountered.

The court acquitted the accused of all charges, finding that relying solely on the judge's own visual comparison of photographs and videotapes, without corroborating eyewitness identification, would be manifestly unsafe given the inherent frailties of identification evidence.

The applicant challenged a police search of the Ministry of Transportation (MTO) driver licence database under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The police used facial recognition technology to search the database and identify the applicant as the holder of multiple fraudulently obtained driver's licences.

The applicant argued that the search violated his reasonable expectation of privacy in his photograph and personal information submitted for driver's licence purposes.

The Crown argued that no reasonable expectation of privacy exists in information voluntarily submitted to obtain a driver's licence, which is a regulated privilege.

The court dismissed the applicant's challenge, finding that driver's licence applicants have neither a subjective nor an objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in the information contained in the MTO database.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy at the YMCA.

The defence sought production of third-party incident reports held by the YMCA documenting other alleged misconduct by the complainant with other men at the facility.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the defence failed to meet the "likely relevance" threshold under section 278.3 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined that the records were sought as part of a speculative fishing expedition to portray the complainant as the initiator of sexual activity, relying on impermissible stereotypes and myths about sexual assault victims.

The offender pleaded guilty to impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm.

He drove his vehicle into oncoming traffic, causing a head-on collision with a 79-year-old victim who suffered catastrophic injuries including a shattered hip and femur, broken ribs, fractured shoulder and neck, and a brain injury.

The offender's blood alcohol concentration was approximately twice the legal limit.

The offender was a first-time offender with strong character references and demonstrated genuine remorse.

The Crown sought 18 months custody, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court imposed 14 months custody, finding that general deterrence and denunciation were paramount sentencing objectives despite significant mitigating factors.

The defendant was charged with speeding at 105 km/h in a posted 60 km/h zone on Dundas Street in Oakville.

The prosecution relied on Lidar speed measurements taken by a trained police officer.

The defendant testified she was traveling at approximately 40 km/h due to traffic lights and her vehicle's standard transmission limitations.

The court found the defendant guilty of the included offence of speeding at 95 km/h in a posted 60 km/h zone, accepting the officer's evidence regarding the speed readings near Meadowridge Drive while finding reasonable doubt regarding the initial 105 km/h reading near Prince Michael Drive.

The defendant pleaded guilty to common assault after initially facing a robbery charge.

The assault occurred when the defendant, as part of a group, physically searched a 17-year-old victim on a public street, including forcibly pulling down the victim's pants.

The defendant was bound by two probation orders at the time of the offence.

The Crown sought a suspended sentence, while the defence sought a conditional discharge, citing potential immigration consequences.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 30 months probation, finding that while immigration consequences were relevant, they were minor and did not warrant a discharge given the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's prior record, and the need for denunciation and specific deterrence.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with over 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood following a roadside stop at an LCBO plaza.

The defence sought exclusion of breathalyzer results on grounds that the accused, whose first language was Punjabi, was not provided with rights to counsel and breath demand in his language until arrival at the police station, and that he was not given the opportunity to contact counsel of choice.

The court found no breach of Charter rights.

Although there were language difficulties at the roadside, the officer appropriately sought assistance from a Punjabi-speaking officer.

The breath demand was provided as soon as practicable given the language barrier.

The accused was informed of his right to counsel of choice but did not indicate he wished to contact private counsel.

The breathalyzer results were admitted and the accused was found guilty.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant and sub-affiant regarding an Information to Obtain a search warrant for his residence.

The search warrant, issued on October 20, 2016, led to the seizure of eight computer devices and the discovery of child pornography.

The applicant was charged with possession of child pornography and accessing child pornography.

The applicant argued that the ITO lacked information about the investigative process linking the computer user at a suspected IP address to the possession of child pornography, and that cross-examination was necessary to remedy these informational shortcomings.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated that cross-examination would elicit testimony tending to discredit a pre-condition to the warrant's authorization.

The court refused leave to cross-examine, finding that the applicant had not established an evidentiary basis for the proposed cross-examination and that the areas sought were too broad and speculative.

The defendant was charged with driving while holding or using a handheld communication device contrary to Section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A University of Guelph police officer observed the defendant using an Apple watch while stopped at a red light on South Ring Road in Guelph.

The defendant claimed she was merely checking the time.

The court found that the defendant was distracted from driving as evidenced by repeated head movements observed by the officer over approximately 20 seconds, and that the Apple watch constitutes a handheld communication device not exempt under the legislation.

The defendant was found guilty and sentenced to a $400 fine with 90 days to pay.

The Crown brought an application under section 111 of the Criminal Code seeking to prohibit the respondent from possessing firearms and related items.

The respondent, a correctional officer diagnosed with PTSD, had voluntarily given his firearms to his brother-in-law in summer 2016 due to concerns about his mental health and violent thoughts.

When he requested their return in February 2017, coinciding with receipt of family law documents regarding custody, his wife and brother-in-law contacted police.

The court found that despite the respondent's safe storage practices and lack of actual violent conduct, legitimate concerns existed regarding his responsibility and discipline as a gun owner, given his recent history of suicidal and homicidal ideation, ongoing PTSD, and stressful life circumstances.

A three-year prohibition order was imposed.

This is a default enforcement hearing under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996 arising from a support payor's failure to pay court-ordered child and spousal support.

The payor accumulated arrears of $1,105,390.77 as of April 1, 2018, stemming from a 2007 trial order requiring $5,475 per month in child support and $4,340 per month in spousal support based on imputed annual income of $344,261.

The payor claimed inability to pay due to business closure in 2008 and mental health issues.

The court found the payor had deliberately and willfully avoided his support obligations over many years, had not complied with court orders, and had intentionally underemployed himself.

The court rejected the payor's claims of inability to pay and imposed a stepped payment schedule with jail terms for default.

A costs decision following contested motions for custody and access in a high-conflict family law matter.

The mother sought full recovery of costs at $13,079.75 after succeeding on her motion for sole custody and access.

The father argued the amount was excessive and claimed inability to pay.

The court awarded costs to the mother on a substantial recovery basis, finding the father's conduct was unreasonable, including filing disproportionate and voluminous material, and failing to make a reasonable settlement offer.

The court awarded $10,000 all-inclusive (fees plus HST and disbursements).

The defendant, charged with serious drug offences, brought an application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence based on allegations that police treatment as a confidential informant constituted an abuse of process.

The defendant argued that police broke their promise to provide consideration in exchange for information and failed to keep proper records of interactions.

The court found that the police officer formed a genuine belief that the information provided was not useful and therefore did not break any promise.

The court also found that the initial exploratory interaction did not require adherence to full confidential informant procedures and that the officer's failure to retain notes was not abusive given the defendant's concerns about recordings.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg%.

The case was defended solely on Charter grounds, specifically alleging breaches of the right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown alleged the defendant was found driving in a CN railroad yard at approximately 2:50 am and displayed signs of impairment.

The defendant requested counsel of choice but police were unable to reach the lawyer after leaving messages.

The court found no Charter breach and admitted the breath test results, finding the defendant guilty on both charges.

The defendant was charged with exceed 80 (impaired driving) following a roadside breath test.

The Crown sought to admit breath sample results showing a blood alcohol content of 180 mg%.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the evidence, alleging multiple Charter breaches during his arrest and detention, including unlawful handcuffing before arrest, failure to provide section 10(b) rights, an unlawful pat-down search, and unlawful detention in a police vehicle.

The court found that while the pat-down search was justified on officer safety grounds and the detention in the police vehicle did not constitute a Charter breach, the defendant was unlawfully handcuffed before his arrest.

This serious Charter infringement was found to outweigh the minimal intrusiveness of the breath test itself under the section 24(2) analysis.

The breath sample results were excluded and the charge was dismissed.