ONCJ 2019

The accused pleaded guilty to child luring contrary to section 172.1 of the Criminal Code.

He communicated with an undercover police officer posing as a 15-year-old girl over several months, attempting to arrange a sexual meeting.

He drove over 200 kilometres to meet the fictional child and was arrested at the rendezvous location.

The Crown sought 12-15 months imprisonment.

The mandatory minimum sentence was six months.

The defence challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum as grossly disproportionate under section 12 of the Charter.

The court found the mandatory minimum violated the Charter and imposed a one-year conditional sentence followed by three years probation.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child was in need of protection and placement in the care of the maternal grandmother.

The mother opposed the motion and sought dismissal or alternatively placement in her own care.

The court found credibility issues regarding the history predating the protection application and the circumstances of the child's placement with the maternal grandmother.

The court determined that the maternal grandmother's evidence, which formed the foundation of the society's case, could not be properly scrutinized on a summary judgment motion.

The court declined to grant summary judgment and instead ordered a focused trial to hear evidence from the maternal grandmother and the mother on the issue of whether the child is in need of protection, with disposition to be determined if a finding of need is made.

Three separate speeding prosecutions were consolidated to address a recurring legal issue regarding sentencing discretion in the early resolution process.

The defendants were charged with speeding offences under section 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

Following early resolution meetings, the prosecution and defence jointly proposed fines significantly exceeding the applicable set fines and fixed fines.

The court held that it lacked authority to impose fines beyond those prescribed by statute, and that the early resolution process under the Provincial Offences Act limits judicial discretion to either the applicable set fine or the fixed fine specified in section 128(14) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The court rejected the joint submissions as unlawful.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown charged two defendants with human trafficking, obtaining material benefits from trafficking and sexual services of minors, procuring minors for sexual services, and permitting unlawful sexual activity by minors on premises they controlled.

The defendants' girlfriends, who were 16 and 17 years old at the time, initially provided detailed statements to police implicating the defendants but recanted at the preliminary hearing.

The central issue was whether the prior statements were admissible under the principled exception to the hearsay rule.

The court found the statements met the threshold reliability test based on procedural safeguards (video recording, formal setting) and substantive reliability (consistency between statements and corroboration by external evidence).

The court committed both defendants to trial on most counts, finding sufficient evidence that they exercised control over the young women for the purpose of exploitation.

The applicant was charged with public mischief and brought a section 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay in trial.

The Crown failed to disclose a critical video statement for nine months after the charge was laid.

Although the net delay of 13 months and 2 days fell below the 18-month Jordan ceiling, the applicant was required to demonstrate both meaningful defence initiative and that the case markedly exceeded reasonable time requirements.

The court found the applicant failed to demonstrate meaningful and sustained steps to expedite proceedings, particularly by not seeking earlier judicial intervention regarding disclosure delays.

The application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, and breach of probation in a domestic violence context.

The court noted the accused's lengthy history of non-compliance and high risk of violent recidivism.

The court sentenced the accused to 36 months of custody in addition to 99 days of pre-sentence custody credit, along with a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, and a non-communication order with the victim.

The accused pleaded guilty to one breach of a recognizance and one breach of probation.

The breaches involved violating court orders to stay away from the victim, Monique Fortin, whom he had previously assaulted on two separate occasions.

The court imposed a six-month conditional sentence followed by two years' probation, along with a section 109 weapons prohibition order for 10 years and a DNA order.

The sentence balanced the serious aggravating factors, including multiple breaches and a pattern of domestic violence, against mitigating factors such as the guilty plea, recent rehabilitation efforts, and stable employment.

An accused was charged with importing more than 2.5 kg of heroin into Canada contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown's case relied entirely on the doctrine of willful blindness.

The accused testified that he had opened the suitcase out of curiosity and to reassure himself, but had not suspected it contained contraband.

The court found the accused's testimony credible and was not persuaded that he harbored suspicions of smuggling when he first opened the suitcase.

The court acquitted the accused.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography between August 26 and October 19, 2012.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court rejected the defence submission for a conditional sentence of imprisonment and imposed a custodial sentence of seven months (less pre-sentence custody credit) followed by three years of probation.

The court found that while the accused had mitigating factors including a guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, and strong family support, the serious nature of the offence—involving over 7,900 images and 64 videos depicting young children in explicit sexual acts—required denunciation and general deterrence as primary sentencing objectives.

The court imposed ancillary orders including a DNA order, Sex Offender Information Registration Act compliance for ten years, a ten-year section 161 order restricting contact with children and internet use, a five-year weapons prohibition, and forfeiture of seized computers.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against a minor complainant over a period of approximately one year.

The Crown presented evidence from the complainant and his younger sister, both under 18 years old, supported by video-recorded statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused denied all allegations.

The court found the complainant's testimony credible and reliable, noting the plausibility of the evidence, corroboration from the sister's testimony, and internal consistency with the narrative.

The court convicted the accused of sexual assault, finding that the Crown had proven the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt, though the court could not establish that the touching commenced prior to the complainant's sixteenth birthday.

The defendant was charged with driving while holding a hand-held wireless communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown alleged the defendant was holding a cell phone to his ear while driving through a tunnel.

The defendant testified he was holding a wireless speaker device that had fallen from its dashboard mount and was not actively using a cell phone at the time of the alleged offence.

The court found a reasonable doubt regarding whether the defendant was actually talking on a cell phone based on the officer's observations and lack of direct evidence of a cell phone.

However, the court determined that the wireless speaker device itself constitutes a wireless communication device under the broad interpretation of the legislation.

The defendant was found guilty of holding a wireless communication device while driving, as the device was not securely mounted as required by regulation and the defendant failed to demonstrate due diligence by picking it up while driving rather than waiting to safely pull over.

The applicant was charged with public mischief following a private information sworn by her estranged husband.

The charge arose from her report to police of an alleged assault.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings based on delay in trial.

The net delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated trial date was approximately 14.5 months, below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court.

The court found that while the defence had taken meaningful steps to expedite proceedings, the case had markedly exceeded reasonable time requirements due to systemic failures and Crown complicity in unnecessary delays, particularly during the pre-enquette phase and service of process.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused challenged the arrest on Charter grounds, alleging breaches of sections 8 and 9.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest, having relied only on suspicion.

The court excluded the breath test results under section 24(2) of the Charter and dismissed both charges.

The court also found insufficient evidence of impairment independent of the breath tests.

The defendant brought a bail review application seeking release from custody on charges of unauthorized possession of a loaded restricted handgun, possession of over-capacity magazines, and possession of ammunition.

The defendant had been in custody since August 17, 2018.

The Crown opposed release, emphasizing the serious nature of the firearm offences, the presence of ammunition, evidence of children in the home, and concerns about the sureties' ability to monitor.

The defence argued for release based on a material change in circumstances, including the withdrawal of a reverse-onus charge, the proposed supervision plan with three sureties, and concerns about pre-trial custody approaching sentence length.

The court found the defendant had not met the onus to demonstrate a substantial or material change in circumstances but left the door open for renewal in August after trial proceedings.

The applicant sought standing to challenge a search warrant executed at an Airbnb unit where a firearm was discovered.

The applicant was present at a birthday party held at the rented unit but did not own, rent, or have possession or control of the premises.

The court applied the test from R. v. Edwards to determine whether the applicant had a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The court found that while the applicant had a subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not objectively reasonable.

The applicant lacked control over the premises, did not contribute to the rental, and his ability to regulate access was entirely subject to the lessee's wishes.

The application was denied.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference concerning his five-year-old granddaughter.

The allegations arose during an acrimonious family law dispute between the complainant's parents over custody, access, and support.

The complainant disclosed the allegations to her mother, who reported them to police.

Although the judge generally accepted the core allegations made by the complainant, the defendant was acquitted due to numerous factors that eroded the strength of the prosecution's case, including credibility concerns regarding both parents, material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, a surreptitious recording made by the complainant's father, and the complainant's challenging demeanor at trial.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five Criminal Code offences arising from a series of incidents on September 7-8, 2018.

The defendant stole a relative's pickup truck and engaged in a prolonged dangerous driving incident on Highway 10 in Grey County, repeatedly ramming a vehicle driven by Ms. A. and her two passengers.

After the victims escaped to a gas station, the defendant led police on a high-speed chase across three counties, evading multiple police services, driving at speeds up to 161 km/h in an 80 km/h zone, and deliberately ramming a police cruiser.

The defendant was sentenced to 12 months in custody (after 9 months pre-sentence custody credit), a three-year driving prohibition, three years probation with treatment conditions, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The accused was convicted following trial of assault, mischief to property (two counts), and sexual assault against his domestic partner over a period spanning from January 2015 to January 2017.

The Crown sought imprisonment for two years less one day followed by probation.

The defence sought a shorter custodial sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of 21 months imprisonment followed by three years probation on the sexual assault charge, with concurrent one-day sentences on the remaining charges.

The court considered sentencing principles including proportionality, denunciation, and general deterrence, while also accounting for the accused's lack of prior criminal record, positive background, and difficult childhood.