ONCJ 2019

The defendant was charged with three offences under the Highway Traffic Act arising from a three-vehicle collision on June 9, 2018, in Toronto: starting from a stopped position not in safety, operating a vehicle with an illegible licence plate, and failing to report the accident.

The defendant admitted to striking two parked vehicles while attempting to adjust his parking position but characterized the contact as minor.

The court found that the defendant's vehicle was parked on a highway, that he set it in motion without ensuring safety, causing significant damage to both other vehicles.

The court also found the defendant's licence plate was not plainly visible as required by law, and that despite being informed the damages exceeded the $2,000 reporting threshold, the defendant failed to report the accident to police.

The court convicted on all three counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood on August 31, 2018, and to impaired driving, dangerous operation, and failing to stop for police on September 8, 2018.

The second offence occurred while the accused was on release for the first charge and bound by an ADLS suspension.

The court imposed a blended sentence consisting of pre-trial custody credited as 14 days, a 90-day intermittent sentence, and a 9-month conditional sentence, along with probation and driving prohibitions.

The sentencing balanced denunciation and deterrence with the accused's demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation and mental health treatment.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in persons contrary to section 279.01 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought the mandatory minimum sentence of four years imprisonment.

The accused challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum under section 12 of the Charter, arguing it was grossly disproportionate to his circumstances.

The court found the mandatory minimum infringed section 12 and could not be justified under section 1.

The court determined an appropriate sentence of 21 months was warranted based on the circumstances of the offence and offender, and declared the mandatory minimum invalid in these proceedings.

The accused was charged with two counts of impaired operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm contrary to section 255(2) of the Criminal Code and two counts of operating a motor vehicle causing an accident resulting in bodily harm while blood alcohol concentration exceeded 80 mg/100 mL contrary to section 255(2.1).

The trial court found that the accused caused a collision at a complex intersection after consuming approximately 9.67 standard alcoholic beverages.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's blood alcohol concentration at the time of driving was between 105 and 155 mg/100 mL, that his ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, and that he caused the accident resulting in significant bodily harm to the victims.

The accused's testimony regarding his alcohol consumption was found to be inconsistent, illogical, and unreliable.

The court convicted on all counts.

A police officer with 29 years of service was sentenced to 30 months in custody for sexual interference with a 15-year-old girl whom he met while working at the police station.

The offender initiated sexual contact within two days of their first meeting and maintained an ongoing sexual relationship with the victim over a four-month period involving various sexual acts.

The court found the offender's conduct predatory in nature, aggravated by his position of trust as a police officer and the significant psychological harm inflicted on the victim.

The court rejected expert opinions suggesting low risk of reoffending, finding the offender had misrepresented the circumstances of the relationship to the experts.

The applicant was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle, two counts of assault resist arrest, and possession of cocaine following his arrest by Durham Regional Police Service officers.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging excessive use of force by police, including repeated tasering and punching to the face, claiming violations of sections 7 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seeking a stay of proceedings.

The court found no Charter breaches, rejected the applicant's evidence of punching as implausible and internally inconsistent, and found the use of tasers was proportional and justified.

The applicant was convicted on the two assault resist arrest counts but acquitted on the impaired care or control and possession charges due to insufficient evidence.

The accused was charged with robbery with a knife of an iPhone from the complainant on March 21, 2018.

The Crown's case relied primarily on eyewitness identification evidence, specifically the complainant's yearbook identification and claimed recognition of the accused from prior sightings at a plaza.

The accused denied involvement and testified he was in Toronto with his girlfriend at the time.

The court found multiple frailties in the identification evidence, including significant discrepancies in height estimation, inconsistencies regarding accents and facial coverings, and the unreliability of the recognition evidence based on brief, distant observations.

The court concluded the Crown failed to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

The accused was charged with Assault Causing Bodily Harm following an altercation with a pedestrian at an intersection.

The accused claimed self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, alleging the complainant made a verbal threat while reaching into his pocket.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding the accused's testimony implausible and inconsistent with independent witness evidence.

The court found the assault was retaliatory aggression for the complainant kicking the accused's vehicle.

The court also found the complainant's injuries constituted bodily harm.

The accused was convicted.

Lafarge Canada Inc. pleaded guilty to failing as an employer to ensure that measures and procedures prescribed under section 72 of Ontario Regulation 851 were carried out at its decommissioned cement plant in Zorra Township, Oxford County.

An operational procurement manager died after falling approximately 30 feet from a corroded exterior catwalk that lacked adequate structural integrity and safeguards.

The defendant had a troubling prior record of four workplace deaths and one critical injury since 2003.

The Crown and defence jointly submitted a fine of $400,000 plus costs and surcharges.

The court accepted the joint submission with considerable reluctance, expressing deep concerns about whether the proposed fine would provide sufficient deterrence given the corporation's history of workplace fatalities and the failure to observe obvious safety hazards.

Grandparents sought interim access to their granddaughter following the respondent mother's unilateral termination of all contact in April 2018.

The court applied the three-part test from Chapman v. Chapman to determine whether grandparent access was in the child's best interests.

While the court found that a positive grandparent-grandchild relationship had existed, it concluded that by the time of termination, the relationship had become negative from the child's perspective due to the irreconcilable conflict between the mother and grandmother.

The court found that the child had been alienated from her grandparents and emotionally impacted by the ongoing conflict.

The court dismissed the motion for access, finding that court-ordered access against the mother's will would not be in the child's best interests and would cause stress and emotional upset.

The accused was charged with multiple firearm-related offences arising from the discharge of a handgun into a crowded lane in downtown Toronto in the early morning of October 14, 2017.

The Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence of identity, as eyewitness identification was insufficient.

The trial judge found the accused guilty based on the totality of evidence, including surveillance video footage, forensic ballistics evidence, DNA analysis, and the consistency of the accused's appearance and clothing with that of the shooter.

The defendant sought permission to be absent from the commencement of his preliminary hearing due to residence in Ottawa and difficulty arranging transportation with a surety as required by his Judicial Interim Release Order.

The Crown did not oppose the application.

The court granted the defendant's request to be absent from part of the preliminary hearing, subject to conditions requiring defence counsel to maintain regular communication with the defendant, provide updates on the proceedings, and seek regular instructions throughout the hearing.

The court addressed the scope of preliminary inquiries following legislative amendments under Bill C-75.

The Crown argued that preliminary hearings should be limited to offences carrying a potential sentence of 14 or more years imprisonment.

The defendant contended that evidence regarding other indictable offences arising from the same transaction should also be heard.

The court held that all allegations occurring during the same transaction as a 14+ offence may be subject to a preliminary hearing, including non-14+ offences already charged or not initially charged, provided they arise from the same transaction.

A young person charged with serious offences including kidnapping, aggravated assault, and forcible confinement (December 2018), and subsequently charged with firearm and drug trafficking offences (August 2019), sought release on bail with proposed sureties.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that the proposed release plan was inadequate to protect the public and that exceptional circumstances warranted detention to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

The young person was detained in custody.

The accused, a massage therapist, was charged with two counts of sexual assault involving two different clients.

The court first ruled that the accused's videotaped statement to police upon arrest was admissible to show his reaction and state of mind, but not for the truth of its contents.

Applying the W.(D.) framework to assess credibility, the court found both complainants credible and noted striking similarities in their accounts.

However, the court was left with a reasonable doubt regarding the first complainant's allegation due to frailties in her evidence and general corroboration from the accused's police statement.

The court found the accused guilty of sexually assaulting the second complainant, rejecting his general denial and finding her evidence compelling and reliable.

A young person pleaded guilty to robbery with a firearm under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The offence involved a coordinated robbery of a marijuana dispensary where the victim was shot in the leg.

The court considered sentencing principles under the YCJA, including the requirement to consider alternatives to custody.

Despite the serious nature of the offence and the Crown's request for 12-15 months custody, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of two years probation with strict conditions, crediting the young person's 171 days of pre-trial custody as equivalent to over 8.5 months.

The decision emphasized rehabilitation, the young person's positive institutional conduct, supportive family circumstances, and concerns regarding the overrepresentation of young Black people in custody.

Following a five-day trial addressing issues of parental mobility, child support, and access, the court awarded costs to the successful party (the mother).

The mother sought full recovery of $37,516 while the father sought either $51,767 or $31,060.

The court determined that the mother was the successful party on three of four primary issues: mobility (relocation to Australia), access, and the child support reduction request.

The father was partially successful on the income imputation issue.

The court declined to apply Rule 18 offer to settle provisions as none of the offers met the statutory requirements.

The court awarded partial indemnification of $25,000 to the mother, with $12,500 to be enforced through the Family Responsibility Office as part of the child support order.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device following a traffic stop.

The officer had reasonable grounds to believe the accused had consumed alcohol and made a lawful demand for a roadside breath sample.

The accused refused the demand multiple times over approximately seven minutes, providing various reasons including frustration with the stop and claims of not having consumed alcohol.

The accused testified that he did not understand what was being asked of him and was anxious about being taken to a police station due to a prior traumatic experience with police.

The court found that the accused's refusals were unequivocal and that he understood what was being demanded of him, despite his testimony to the contrary.

The court rejected the accused's explanations and found him guilty of refusing to provide a breath sample.

A costs decision following a family law trial concerning access to a two-year-old child.

The respondent was largely successful on the primary issue and made a formal Offer to Settle eight days before trial that mirrored the final judgment.

The applicant refused to settle and took an intransigent position throughout the litigation.

The court awarded costs at 50% of the respondent's claimed amount, reducing the award due to the respondent's poor conduct and behaviour in the early stages of the litigation, despite his ultimate success and the applicant's failure to negotiate.

The defendants were charged with failing to provide the necessaries of life and forcible confinement of their four-year-old daughter.

Police discovered the apartment in an extremely unsanitary condition with feces, urine, rotting food, and garbage throughout.

The child was found confined to her room by a rope tied to the doorknob.

The court acquitted both defendants on both charges, finding that the confinement fell within lawful parental authority and that the Crown failed to prove the child was in necessitous circumstances or that the unsanitary environment posed a non-trivial risk of harm without expert evidence.