ONCJ 2020

The defendant brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charge was operating a motor vehicle while using a handheld communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, alleged to have occurred on February 20, 2018.

The matter proceeded through multiple adjournments over approximately 24 months.

The court applied the framework established in R v Jordan, determining that the presumptive ceiling for Part 1 Provincial Offences Act matters is 18 months.

After deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay was approximately 15 months, falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought child support for a three-year-old child from the respondent father.

The mother requested the table amount of $510 per month based on an assessed income of $55,336.

The father claimed undue hardship under section 10 of the Child Support Guidelines and requested a reduced amount of $200 per month.

The court assessed the father's income at $51,938 for 2019 and $53,236 for 2020, resulting in table amounts of $478 and $491 respectively.

The father's undue hardship claim was dismissed as he failed to demonstrate exceptional, excessive, or disproportionate hardship.

The court found the father had surplus income and that his discretionary expenses (particularly a $630 monthly car payment) were not necessary.

The court ordered the father to pay the table amount retroactively from February 1, 2019, with credits for payments made and arrears payable at $100 per month.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and having more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 mL of blood.

The Crown called two OPP officers as witnesses.

The defence abandoned a Charter application prior to trial.

The court dismissed the over 80 charge due to the Crown's failure to establish the target value of the alcohol standard used in the calibration check, as required under section 320.31(1)(a) of the Criminal Code following recent legislative changes.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation based on the officer observations of poor driving, slurred speech, unsteady balance, and odour of alcohol on the breath, rejecting the defence argument that a prior head injury and recent fall could account for the observations.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging a violation of his right to counsel under s. 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The defendant was arrested following a failed breath screening device test during a marine safety inspection.

He challenged the admissibility of breath samples obtained after his arrest, arguing that police failed to provide sufficient information about his right to counsel and that his waiver was not informed.

The court found no breach of the defendant's Charter rights, holding that the defendant was provided adequate information about his right to counsel, that he did not assert his right to counsel, and that his waiver was clear, unequivocal, and informed.

The applicant mother brought three motions seeking to amend her pleadings, set aside a Final Consent Order from March 29, 2017, transfer the case to Superior Court, and obtain increased child support and retroactive section 7 expenses.

The respondent father opposed these motions.

The court dismissed most of the mother's claims, finding that the issues had been settled in the Final Order and that allowing amendments would cause unjust disadvantage to the father.

The court determined that prospective section 7 expenses from March 29, 2017 forward remained outstanding and required DivorceMate calculations to be prepared for final determination.

This is a temporary care and custody hearing under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning a two-year-old child who suffered catastrophic brain damage from an insulin overdose administered by the mother in June 2019.

The mother was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, and administering noxious substances and remains incarcerated.

The father sought temporary custody, while the maternal grandparents sought placement with them.

The court placed the child in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to society supervision, finding that he had demonstrated exceptional commitment to the child's complex medical needs and had established comprehensive services and support systems.

The maternal grandparents were granted access at the society's discretion, with a minimum of twice weekly three-hour visits, subject to conditions regarding appropriate conduct and adherence to medical direction.

The accused was charged with uttering death threats and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The Crown alleged that the accused made specific threats to kill Canadians during a phone conversation with a social services manager and was found carrying a concealed folding knife.

The accused denied making the threats, claiming language difficulties, and testified the knife was purchased for a shoe repair and was being returned.

The court found the Crown's witness credible and the accused's testimony unreliable and internally inconsistent.

The court accepted that the accused made the threats in the context of his grievances and possessed the knife for a dangerous purpose.

Guilty verdicts were entered on both counts.

The defendant was charged with two offences under the Regional Municipality of Waterloo By-Law 16-023 (as amended by By-Law 18-023): offering tow truck services within 200 metres of an accident scene and positioning a tow truck within 200 metres of an accident scene.

The defendant challenged the validity of the amended by-law as inconsistent with the Highway Traffic Act.

The court found that the amended by-law conflicted with section 177(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, which provides an exception for towing services in emergencies.

The court determined that an accident constitutes an emergency and that the by-law's complete prohibition on tow truck presence within 200 metres of an accident scene eliminated the provincial emergency exception.

The court found the amended by-law invalid and dismissed both charges.

The applicant sought to establish standing to challenge the admissibility of a loaded handgun, ammunition, and drugs seized from a wooden fence during execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The applicant argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fence and its contents.

The Crown contended there was no reasonable expectation of privacy in a shared fence accessible from the neighbor's property.

The court found that the applicant established standing by demonstrating a reasonable expectation of privacy in the fence, albeit at the lower end of the spectrum, as the fence was part of the curtilage of the residence and the items were not abandoned.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a December 6, 2018 incident where a civilian witness observed erratic driving on Highway 403 and called 911.

Police attended at an ice arena parking lot where the defendant was located.

The defendant failed a roadside screening device test and was arrested.

Breath samples revealed readings of 340 and 330 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant brought Charter applications challenging the lawfulness of the detention, the timing of the ASD demand, the provision of rights to counsel, and the reasonableness of grounds for arrest.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the defendant guilty of both offences.

The accused was charged with two counts of breaching an undertaking by communicating with his former partner.

The accused was self-represented, and the court appointed counsel under s. 486 of the Criminal Code to cross-examine the complainant.

The court found the accused guilty of the first breach based on the corroborating testimony of the accused's brother, who confirmed the accused met with the complainant at a park.

However, the court acquitted the accused of the second breach (a telephone call), finding that the s. 486 counsel's cross-examination of the complainant was wholly inadequate and failed to properly test her evidence.

The court held that it would be dangerous to accept the complainant's untested testimony where the accused was precluded from making full answer and defence due to the ineffective cross-examination by court-appointed counsel.

The defendant was convicted after trial of five sexual offences against a 13-year-old victim: sexual assault, sexual interference, invitation to sexual touching, indecent act, and child luring.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The defendant challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum penalties under section 12 of the Charter.

The court imposed an 8-month concurrent jail sentence followed by 18 months probation, along with ancillary orders including a lifetime SOIRA registration and a 5-year prohibition on employment or volunteering with persons under 16.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding his learning disability as a mitigating factor and declined to impose a conditional sentence.

This is a costs decision following the court's dismissal of the applicant's application on jurisdictional grounds.

The respondent sought costs of $4,062.00 on a partial recovery basis, while the applicant argued no costs should be awarded.

The court applied the Family Law Rules framework and found the respondent entitled to costs as the successful party.

However, the court reduced the award to $2,800.00 on a partial recovery basis, finding certain entries in the respondent's bill of costs excessive and not reasonably justified given the narrow nature of the motion.

The court considered the applicant's limited financial means as a factor in determining the amount but did not use it as a shield against liability.

The accused, a teacher, was charged with assault with a weapon.

The defence brought a third-party records application seeking disclosure of school records and police records relating to the complainant's history of violent or aggressive conduct and credibility issues.

The court applied the two-stage O'Connor test to determine disclosability.

At stage one, the court found the records likely relevant to the defence of self-defence.

At stage two, the court balanced the accused's right to make full answer and defence against the complainant's privacy interests.

The court ordered disclosure of school records documenting violent disposition and misconduct from age 12 onwards, and police occurrence reports meeting the criteria under section 123 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

Strict conditions were imposed on the use and retention of disclosed materials.

The defendant pleaded guilty to production of cannabis marijuana contrary to section 7(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The offence involved the cultivation of medical marijuana on a property without valid licenses under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations.

The court imposed a suspended sentence with two years probation rather than the Crown's requested four-year jail sentence.

The court also dismissed the Crown's application for forfeiture of the real property, finding that such forfeiture would be disproportionate under section 19.1(3) of the CDSA.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal of two accused on multiple drug trafficking and firearms offences.

The accused Barker conceded committal on most counts except simple possession of fentanyl.

The accused Duncan challenged committal on all counts.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both accused on trafficking charges related to cocaine transactions with an undercover officer on December 19, 2018, and on possession for purpose of trafficking charges related to drugs found in a rental vehicle.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit Duncan on possession charges related to prescription pills found in his bedroom.

However, the court discharged Duncan on all firearms offences, finding insufficient evidence of his possession of a firearm found in the basement.

The court committed Barker on all firearms offences based on circumstantial evidence linking him to the shoebox where the firearm was found.

Vixman Construction Ltd. was convicted of two regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following the death of worker William Dean Maguire, who fell approximately 3.6 metres from a work surface at Billy Bishop Toronto Island Airport on March 27, 2018.

The Crown alleged that the company failed to ensure proper fall arrest system configuration and failed to arrange the fall arrest system so that a worker could not hit the ground or an object below the work.

The court imposed a $125,000 fine plus a 25% Victim Fine Surcharge and an 18-month probation order with conditions requiring the company to publish safety information, produce an educational video, and implement enhanced fall protection procedures.

The accused pleaded guilty to ten charges including unlawfully being in a dwelling house, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, possession of stolen property (motor vehicles), occupying motor vehicles without consent, operating a motor vehicle while disqualified, and failures to comply with recognizance conditions.

The charges spanned from July 2018 to August 2019.

The Crown sought 14-15 months incarceration while the defence sought 8.5 months.

The court imposed a total sentence of nine months pre-sentence custody, considering the principle of totality, Lord Coke's principle (that subsequent convictions cannot aggravate sentences for prior offences), and the accused's personal circumstances including functional illiteracy, family history of substance abuse, and depression.

The accused, a 16-year-old youth, was charged with assaulting a pregnant woman causing bodily harm during a family celebration.

The Crown alleged the accused punched and kicked the complainant.

The accused testified he only slapped the complainant in self-defence after she pushed and hit him.

The court found the complainant to be a credible and reliable witness whose testimony was consistent with photographic evidence of her injuries.

The accused's testimony contained multiple inconsistencies and his post-offence conduct of leaving without his shoes suggested consciousness of guilt.

The court found the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to his four-month-old infant daughter.

The Crown's case was based primarily on circumstantial evidence, including medical evidence of a skull fracture, four rib fractures, and a metatarsal fracture.

The accused initially provided a false explanation for the skull fracture (a fall from a change table) and later suggested to the child's mother that he may have caused injuries through a medical exercise.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove exclusive opportunity and that the medical evidence could not establish when the injuries occurred.

The court found that while the accused did not have exclusive opportunity to cause the injuries, and while the evidence was circumstantial, there remained reasonable doubt as to guilt.

The accused was acquitted.