ONCJ 2020

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 7,007 grams of cocaine into Canada contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought six and one-half years imprisonment while defence sought five years.

The court imposed a sentence of five and one-half years, granting credit for pre-trial custody at 1.5 times (Summers credit) and an additional 1:1 Duncan credit for lockdown days.

The court considered the defendant's difficult personal circumstances, including an abusive relationship, mental health issues, and the collateral consequences of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic as factors warranting a reduction from the typical sentencing range of 6-8 years.

A young person was found guilty of aggravated assault following a trial.

The Crown sought a 9-month custody and supervision order followed by 14 months of probation.

The defence sought a non-custodial sentence, arguing that the accused's 914 days of pre-trial house arrest should be credited as equivalent to the proposed custodial sentence.

The court imposed a 24-month probation order with conditions including 50 hours of community service, a 5-year weapons prohibition, and a DNA order, finding that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate given the accused's vulnerability, mental health difficulties, compliance during house arrest, and the lengthy period already spent under restrictive bail conditions.

The accused were charged with robbery, pointing and discharging a firearm, and in one case, breaching bail conditions, arising from an incident at a bar in Mississauga on October 9, 2019.

The Crown's case relied heavily on the identification evidence of the victim, who gave inconsistent statements to police and at trial.

The court admitted the victim's prior police statement under the principled exception to the hearsay rule based on procedural reliability.

However, the court found that the victim's evidence contained significant inconsistencies regarding the timing and circumstances of the alleged shooting, and that video evidence did not support her account.

The court concluded that the victim's evidence could not safely carry the whole weight of the Crown's case and acquitted both accused on all charges.

The accused was charged with refusing to provide a sample into an approved screening device under the Criminal Code and careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown proved the careless driving charge beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence of aggressive and erratic driving, including high-speed passing and tailgating.

However, the court dismissed the refusal charge, finding that the accused's refusal was equivocal and that the officer rushed to judgment without affording the accused adequate opportunity to provide a sample, particularly given the accused's medical condition following a serious motor vehicle collision.

Application by defendant Jasmyn Jarrett to join a trial already in progress after she failed to appear on the first day.

The defendant had been arrested on a bench warrant and sought retroactive permission to participate in the trial, having missed the first five days of evidence.

The Crown opposed the application, arguing that the trial had effectively been severed when the Crown proceeded against the three remaining defendants.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the Crown has discretion to proceed with co-accused and that allowing the defendant to join retroactively would prejudice the other defendants' right to a timely trial and would require the Crown to have led evidence differently.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration equal to or exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood, contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought to rely on a Certificate of a Qualified Technician to prove the breath test results.

The defence challenged the admissibility of the Certificate on the grounds that the accused was not properly served with notice of the Certificate as required by section 320.32(2) of the Criminal Code.

The trial judge found that the Crown failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that proper service had been effected and ruled the Certificate inadmissible.

However, the trial judge exercised discretion to permit the Crown to reopen its case to call the Qualified Technician as a witness.

The accused was charged with uttering threats and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose arising from an incident in the family home on August 4, 2019.

The accused cut the electrical cord of a blender with a large kitchen knife while his wife was using it, smashed the blender to the ground, and allegedly threatened to cut or kill her.

The Crown relied on the complainant's testimony, photographic evidence, and a 9-1-1 call made immediately after the incident.

The defence argued the complainant's evidence was inconsistent and unreliable.

The court found the 9-1-1 call admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay rule and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and dangerous driving causing death following a motor vehicle collision.

This pre-trial motion addressed the admissibility of evidence obtained during the police investigation.

The court found multiple Charter violations including unlawful detention without rights advisement, compelled statements in violation of section 7 rights, unlawful arrest and breath demand, unlawful vehicle seizure without reasonable grounds, and unlawful seizure of blood samples and airbag data.

The court determined that the investigation was fundamentally flawed from its inception, with police taking investigative shortcuts that resulted in evidence being unlawfully obtained.

The court found that evidence obtained in violation of the Charter could not be relied upon to lawfully seize other evidence, rendering subsequent warranted seizures unlawful as well.

This is a temporary care hearing under section 94 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to determine placement of a nine-year-old child during adjournment of a child protection application.

The central issue is the effect of a Kinship Services Agreement (KSA) entered into between the mother, maternal grandparents, and the Society in May 2019, which placed the child with the grandparents due to the mother's substance misuse.

The father, who had access rights only under a 2013 custody order, was not notified of the KSA.

The court determined that the KSA was a voluntary safety plan, not a statutory intervention under Part V, and therefore did not crystallize intervention until the protection application was commenced.

The court found the grandparents had charge of the child at the time of formal intervention and ordered the child remain in their temporary care.

The accused applied for a Rowbotham order seeking Crown funding for legal representation, arguing that he was indigent, ineligible for legal aid, and that his right to a fair trial would be materially compromised if unrepresented.

The charge involved an indecent assault on a minor alleged to have occurred between 1979 and 1982.

The court dismissed the application, finding that while the charge was serious, the central issues at trial would revolve around credibility assessments, which are within the capability of a self-represented accused of average education and intelligence.

The court noted that appointed counsel would be available to cross-examine the complainant and bring necessary pre-trial applications, and that the trial judge would provide reasonable assistance throughout the proceedings.

The accused was convicted of sexual assault following trial.

The Crown sought imprisonment for nine months followed by probation for two years, along with ancillary orders including a DNA order, SOIRA registration for 10 years, weapons prohibition, and a section 743.21 order.

The defence sought a conditional discharge with strict probation conditions including house arrest.

The court imposed imprisonment for four months followed by probation for three years, with conditions including no contact with the victim, a 20-metre distance requirement, mandatory counselling and sexual offender relapse prevention programming, restrictions on employment in positions of trust involving physical therapy, and ancillary orders for DNA collection, SOIRA registration for 10 years, and weapons prohibition.

An application under the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act for child support for three children.

The claimant, residing in Minnesota, sought support from the respondent, residing in Ontario.

The respondent initially failed to respond but later attended hearings and provided oral evidence.

The court imputed the respondent's annual income at $36,000 based on his lifestyle and actual earnings, despite his tax return showing only $8,353.

The court ordered child support of $737 monthly per the guidelines table, retroactive to February 1, 2020, and credited the respondent for direct payments made to the claimant.

The applicant sought to set aside a temporary separation agreement executed by the parties in September 2019 and opposed the respondent's planned relocation with the children from Brantford to Wasaga Beach.

The applicant also challenged jurisdiction, arguing the matter should be transferred to Barrie.

The court found the separation agreement valid and binding, rejecting the applicant's claims that he did not understand its nature and consequences and that he was subject to duress.

The court also determined that Brantford remained the proper jurisdiction despite the children's relocation, considering the temporary nature of the agreement and the practical concerns of transferring the file.

The Children's Aid Society of Brant sought an order placing a child in extended care with access to the grandmother at the Society's discretion.

The grandmother sought alternate weekend access and weekly virtual visits.

The court balanced the need for permanency and stability in the child's adoptive placement against the importance of maintaining consistency and routine in the child's relationship with the grandmother.

The court ordered monthly overnight access and twice-monthly virtual access, maintaining the status quo while rejecting both the Society's request for reduced access and the grandmother's request for increased access.

The accused was charged with possession, accessing, and making child pornography available following the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, including the discovery of 5,652 accessible images and 65 accessible videos on two laptops and four hard drives seized from the basement room.

The evidence included user accounts named "wil," personal documents in the accused's name, and evidence of viewing and organizing the material.

The defence argued that the investigation was negligent and that other residents in the home could have possessed and accessed the computers.

The court found that the only reasonable inference from the evidence was that the accused had knowledge and control over the computers and the child pornography material, particularly Computer 1 which was password-protected and used by the accused as recently as June 2019.

The court convicted the accused on all charges.

The offender pleaded guilty to one count of fraud over $5,000.

As a senior accountant at Payfare Inc., a financial technology company, the offender exploited a loophole in the company's banking portal to fraudulently transfer approximately $1.27 million to accounts in his name over a ten-month period.

The offender used the funds primarily for gambling, leisure, travel, and personal expenses.

Upon discovery, approximately $143,000 was recovered.

The offender subsequently entered into a civil settlement agreement with Payfare requiring payment of $85,000 over five years.

The court imposed a sentence of three years' imprisonment, a four-year prohibition order under section 380.2 of the Criminal Code, and a restitution order of $100,000 to the insurance company.

This is a Status Review Application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act involving three children with special needs who have been in the care of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

The court found that all three children remain at risk of physical harm due to the father's serious and long-standing alcohol addiction, his inability to maintain sobriety, his lack of honesty and cooperation with the society and community supports, and allegations of inappropriate physical discipline.

The court ordered that one child be placed in extended care of the society and the other two children be placed in the custody of their paternal aunt, with access arrangements to be supervised.

The father brought a motion arguing that the continuation of the child protection application constituted an abuse of process due to concurrent proceedings in the Superior Court of Justice regarding a motion to change the divorce order.

The court found that while there was overlap between the two proceedings, dismissing the protection application would be inappropriate given the public policy considerations underlying child protection proceedings, the society's unique investigative role and mandate to protect the child, and the mother's inability to replicate the society's resources.

The court dismissed the father's abuse of process motion and adjourned the society's summary judgment motion sine die, allowing the Superior Court motion to change to proceed while encouraging the society's participation.

A young person was charged with ten firearms offences arising from live-streamed videos on Instagram on August 31, 2019.

The Crown proceeded on three counts: possession of a restricted firearm without a license (s. 91), careless use of a firearm (s. 86), and pointing a firearm (s. 88).

The court admitted edited police recordings of the live streams but rejected the detective's recognition evidence due to credibility concerns regarding a bail compliance check.

The court found the accused's identity on the videos through independent review but could not establish possession of the firearm beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Crown failed to prove the accused was at the location where the videos were filmed and could not establish that the object briefly held by the accused was the same firearm seized the next day.

The court acquitted on all three counts.

The defendants challenged the sufficiency of a search warrant that led to their arrest on narcotics and weapons offences.

The court upheld the warrant, finding reasonable grounds existed for the search at 110-90 Carden Street in Guelph.

The analysis considered nine confidential informants with varying degrees of reliability, prior criminal records of the defendants, and extensive surveillance evidence corroborating drug trafficking activity at the location.

The application to quash the warrant was dismissed.