ONCJ 2026

The court imposed sentence after guilty pleas to impaired driving causing bodily harm and dangerous driving causing bodily harm arising from a high-speed single-vehicle crash with severe, life-altering injuries to the passenger.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles, including proportionality, parity, denunciation, and general deterrence, the court emphasized Parliament’s enhanced approach to dangerous and impaired driving offences and rejected a conditional sentence as unfit.

Aggravating factors included statutorily aggravating blood-alcohol levels, dangerous operation on a 400-series highway, a recent speeding record, and lasting victim harm, while mitigation included youth, no prior criminal record, guilty plea, employment, and community support.

The court found limited insight and gave tempered weight to late rehabilitative efforts.

A penitentiary sentence of 24 months was imposed concurrently, with a five-year driving prohibition and DNA order.

In this criminal trial for refusing to provide a breath sample after a collision, the accused sought Charter remedies including exclusion of evidence and a stay under ss. 24(2) and 24(1).

The court held that the roadside detention, handcuffing, and force used by police were reasonable in the circumstances, and found no breaches of ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), or 12.

The court also found no breach of s. 10(b), confirming that immediate compliance with a lawful ASD demand does not trigger prior access to counsel.

In the alternative, the court held any potential s. 10(b) breach was minimal and would not justify exclusion under the Grant framework.

Following conviction after trial for two counts of criminal harassment and theft under $5000 against a former intimate partner, the court determined sentence.

The accused had an extensive record including numerous court-order breaches and violent offences, prior conditional sentences, and no remorse or participation at sentencing.

Applying Criminal Code sentencing principles, including ss. 718 and 718.2(a)(ii), the court treated intimate-partner context, repeated attendances at the complainant’s residence, and disregard of police caution as aggravating.

The court held that a conditional sentence order would not protect community safety and would not satisfy denunciation and deterrence.

A global seven-month custodial sentence with pre-sentence custody credit, concurrent terms, two years’ probation, a DNA order, and a lifetime weapons prohibition was imposed.

The sentencing court addressed guilty pleas entered on a limited factual basis to sexual interference, sexual exploitation, and sexual assault involving a child complainant, followed by a Gardiner hearing on disputed facts.

Applying Part XXIII of the Criminal Code, including ss. 718.1 and 718.2, the court found prolonged abuse over five years, severe and lasting victim harm, a major breach of trust, and high moral blameworthiness, with minimal mitigation beyond the absence of a criminal record.

Guided by R v Friesen and comparator appellate and trial authorities, the court fixed a fit sentence at eleven years' imprisonment.

After Summers credit and additional credit for harsh pretrial detention conditions, the remaining custodial term was seven years, with concurrent sentences on the sexual interference and sexual exploitation counts, a conditional stay of the sexual assault count under the Kienapple principle, and ancillary DNA, SOIRA, weapons, s. 161, and no-contact orders.

In a family law costs endorsement following a trial of competing motions to change decision-making responsibility, the successful mother sought substantial costs, while the father sought no costs or a significantly reduced amount.

The court applied Family Law Rules costs principles, including reasonableness, proportionality, unreasonable conduct, offers to settle, and jurisprudence on quantifying costs for self-represented litigants.

It declined to award costs for previously resolved issues and reduced recovery based on the mother’s unreasonable conduct and failure to make an offer to settle, while also finding unreasonable conduct by the father.

The court awarded partial costs of $4,200 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST, payable by monthly instalments with acceleration on default.

Following a conviction for assault causing bodily harm, the sentencing issue was whether the accused should receive a suspended sentence with a criminal record or a conditional discharge.

The court reviewed aggravating harm to the complainant, including concussion and whiplash, alongside mitigating factors including no prior record, mental health and substance use disorders, remorse, rehabilitation efforts, and Indigenous background.

Applying ss. 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code and the Gladue framework, the court emphasized restorative principles and the individualized circumstances of Indigenous offenders.

The court held that a non-custodial disposition without a criminal record was appropriate in the circumstances.

The accused was conditionally discharged and placed on probation for 18 months.

The moving party sought decision-making and parenting orders in a high-conflict family law proceeding involving a child requiring ongoing services.

Applying the best-interests framework under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found both parents had engaged in self-help conduct, but made adverse reliability findings against the moving party and accepted the responding party’s evidence on historical primary residence.

The court held that a joint regime was unworkable and that sole decision-making should rest with the responding party to secure timely educational, medical, and therapeutic decisions.

A defined parenting schedule, holiday regime, information-sharing rights, and parenting-app communication terms were ordered to reduce conflict and promote stability.

In this criminal trial on a charge under s. 88 of the Criminal Code, the central issue was whether the accused possessed a concealed machete for a peaceful purpose or for a purpose dangerous to the public peace.

The defence argued a culinary purpose tied to purchasing coconuts and sugar cane and submitted the machete was swung once in self-defence after an unprovoked punch.

The court accepted the independent civilian and police evidence, rejected key parts of the accused’s testimony as implausible and unreliable, and found the post-incident handling of the machete supported an inference of consciousness of guilt.

Applying the governing framework for s. 88 offences and the proportionality analysis under s. 34 self-defence principles, the court concluded the possession was for an offensive dangerous purpose.

The accused was convicted.

Sentencing for multiple sexual offences against children, including two counts of sexual interference, one count of sexual exploitation, four counts of making child pornography, and one count of possession of child pornography.

The offender, in a position of trust as stepfather, sexually abused two stepdaughters over a period exceeding six years, commencing when the victims were 9 and 11 years of age.

The abuse escalated in severity and frequency and included video-recording of the sexual assaults.

The court applied the principles from R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9, prioritizing denunciation and deterrence as paramount sentencing objectives, and considered the significant aggravating factors including breach of trust, duration and frequency of offending, the creation of child sexual abuse material, and the severe impact on the victims.

A global sentence of 16 years imprisonment less enhanced pre-sentence custody credit was imposed, along with ancillary orders including lifetime SOIRA, DNA order, firearms prohibition, s. 161 order, and non-communication order.

The accused was charged with four counts of acting as a motor vehicle dealer without registration contrary to the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and two counts of making false, misleading or deceptive representations contrary to the Consumer Protection Act.

The accused purchased and resold four vehicles over a period of approximately five months, typically listing them for sale within days of acquisition at substantial markups.

The accused argued the section 5 personal use exemption applied.

The court found the exemption inapplicable as the pattern of trading demonstrated a profit motive rather than legitimate personal use, considering the speed of resale, profit margins, and volume of trades.

The accused was found guilty on five counts and acquitted on one count at the invitation of the prosecution.