Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCJ

Jameel Vanderhyden-Steaman pled guilty to possession of an unloaded prohibited firearm with readily accessible ammunition contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code.

The sentencing was delayed due to the unavailability of an Impact of Race and Culture Report, resulting in an Enhanced Pre-Sentence Report addressing racial factors.

The court considered aggravating factors including possession in a vehicle on a public road and being wanted on an outstanding warrant, alongside numerous mitigating factors such as youth, lack of criminal record, employment, family support, and the impact of systemic anti-Black racism.

The judge found that a penitentiary sentence was not required and imposed a conditional sentence of 2 years less a day, with enhanced credit for time served under strict house arrest conditions, along with ancillary orders including DNA sample, weapons prohibition, victim fine surcharge, and forfeiture of seized items.

The defendant, Kadah Dematas, was found guilty of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm against two police officers.

The court considered aggravating factors, including his serious criminal record and the nature of the offences against law enforcement, and mitigating factors, such as his youth, efforts at rehabilitation, and Indigenous and racialized background (Morris and Gladue principles).

The court imposed a total penitentiary sentence of 30 months, with significant pre-sentence custody credit, and ancillary orders including a DNA sample and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused, S.E., sought judicial interim release on serious charges including human trafficking, procuring, sexual assault, and drug trafficking.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds, citing S.E.'s alleged breaches of a previous release order and the unsuitability of proposed sureties.

The court found the proposed sureties unsuitable due to their "blind spots" and inability to provide adequate supervision, and determined that the release plan would not reduce the substantial likelihood of reoffending or maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

Despite S.E. being a member of an overrepresented vulnerable population, the court ordered his detention.

Anthony Ha pleaded guilty to assault and distributing intimate images.

The victim, his former intimate partner, suffered physical and psychological harm.

The Crown sought five months jail and probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court found numerous aggravating factors, including the calculated nature of distributing intimate images for revenge, breach of trust, and significant victim impact.

Mitigating factors included a guilty plea, no prior record, and counselling.

The court rejected a conditional sentence, emphasizing the need for denunciation and general deterrence for such serious offences, particularly those involving intimate partner violence and non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

The accused, a tow truck driver, was charged with assault with a weapon, threatening bodily harm, and dangerous driving following an altercation with another tow truck driver.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, supported by video and physical evidence, and rejected the accused's self-defence claim, finding his actions were motivated by vengeance rather than self-protection.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon and threatening bodily harm, but not guilty of dangerous driving as the driving conduct did not meet the criminal threshold.

The accused, Seleshi Robi, was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The defence argued involuntary intoxication, claiming the accused was unaware that the traditional Ethiopian drink, Tej, consumed at a church celebration, contained alcohol.

The defence also attributed erratic driving and physical observations to extreme fatigue and back pain.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding his lack of knowledge about Tej's alcohol content and his English comprehension to be incredible and unreliable, given his statements to police and the nature of the drink.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, dismissing the defence of involuntary intoxication and finding the accused guilty.

The accused, R.S., an environmental aid at Hamilton General Hospital, was charged with sexual assault after a patient, L.R., alleged he touched her vagina while she was recovering from a car accident.

The Crown and the accused presented conflicting accounts of the events.

The court found both the complainant and the accused to be credible witnesses.

Applying the R. v. W.(D.) framework, the court determined that its inability to resolve the conflicting credible evidence about the alleged crime left it in a state of reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.

The accused pleaded guilty to breaching the "no drugs" condition of his long-term supervision order by testing positive for cocaine.

The court imposed a sentence of 11 months imprisonment, with pre-trial custody credited at 1.5 to 1, leaving 96 days to be served.

The decision provides a comprehensive analysis of sentencing principles for LTSO breaches, emphasizing the balance between denunciation and rehabilitation, and considering the offender's Aboriginal heritage and engagement with cultural practices.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code for conduct that allegedly occurred on July 7, 2017, during a camping trip to Algonquin Park.

The Crown alleged that the accused sexually assaulted the complainant while she was sleeping in a tent.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming nothing of a sexual nature occurred while the complainant was sleeping.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, and rejected the accused's denials.

The judge was particularly influenced by the accused's text messages to the complainant's father, which demonstrated consciousness of guilt.

The judge found that the accused penetrated the complainant's vagina without consent while she was unconscious, constituting sexual assault.

The offender pleaded guilty to 14 amended counts involving multiple break and enters into residential laundry rooms, thefts from laundry machines, damage to property, a theft from Canadian Tire, and a breach of recognizance.

The offences occurred between December 2018 and February 2019, with the offender committing further offences while on bail.

The Crown sought two years less a day plus probation, while the defence sought time served plus probation.

The court imposed 15 months incarceration with credit for 419 days of pre-sentence custody (including 90 days for harsh conditions), resulting in 36 additional days to serve, followed by three years probation with conditions including counselling, mental health treatment, and restitution orders.

Sentencing decision following conviction for aggravated assault and weapons dangerous.

The accused stabbed the victim once in the cardiac box during an altercation, causing catastrophic injuries including cardiac arrest, anoxic brain injury, and permanent cognitive and functional impairment.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of 3.5 years on the aggravated assault charge, with 12 months concurrent on the weapons charge, resulting in a net sentence of 1.5 years after crediting 2 years of pretrial custody.

The court applied collateral consequence credit of 3 months for harsh incarceration conditions, resulting in a final net sentence of 15 months, followed by 2 years probation with conditions including no contact with the victim, counselling, and a lifetime weapons prohibition.

The accused pleaded guilty to robbery.

The Crown sought 18 months imprisonment; defence counsel sought 6 months with credit for bail conditions.

The court imposed 10 months imprisonment followed by 2 years probation, with ancillary orders including a DNA order, weapons prohibition for 10 years, and a no-contact order with co-accused.

The court balanced aggravating factors (two bank robberies, use of imitation firearm, vulnerable victims) against mitigating factors (youth, guilty plea, remorse, no prior record, family support, educational pursuits).

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference, three counts of incest, two counts of sexual assault, and one count of making child pornography.

The offences involved the systematic sexual abuse of the accused's three biological daughters over approximately ten years, beginning when each was approximately thirteen years old.

The abuse included multiple acts of sexual intercourse, forced masturbation, forced oral sex, and digital penetration.

The accused also took nude photographs of his youngest daughter.

All three victims have intellectual disabilities.

The court imposed an 11-year penitentiary sentence, with ancillary orders including a lifetime SOIRA registration, DNA order, and lifetime Section 161 order.

The applicants sought disclosure of the complete investigative file relating to a homicide investigation that formed the basis for wiretap authorizations under Part VI of the Criminal Code.

The Crown resisted disclosure, arguing that materials not explicitly relied upon in the Information to Obtain were irrelevant and protected by public interest privilege.

The court held that the accused's right to make full answer and defence applies to pre-trial evidentiary hearings, including Garofoli applications.

The court established that materials in the "investigative file" are presumptively relevant and should be disclosed, defined as all materials accumulated by the investigating agency as a consequence of its investigative efforts in the investigation giving rise to the authorization itself.

The court ordered disclosure of specified materials from the homicide investigation file, subject to redactions protecting informer privilege, while declining to order disclosure of the entire investigative file to prevent needless complexity.

The court ruled on the admissibility of expert evidence from a toxicologist regarding the maintenance and operation of an Intoxilyzer 8000C breath testing device in an over 80 operation case.

The expert sought to raise a reasonable doubt about the reliability of the breath test results by analyzing historical maintenance records and COBRA data.

The court excluded the expert evidence on multiple grounds: the opinions were not logically relevant as they could not raise a reasonable doubt about the specific breath test results; the opinions were based on speculation and erroneous factual information; and the opinions constituted novel science lacking sufficient reliability and peer review.

The court emphasized that maintenance deficiencies must be directly linked to unreliable results, and that historical records cannot address the working status of the instrument at the time of the subject test.

The accused was charged with three counts of assault involving the same complainant.

The Crown called the complainant as a witness, but she testified that she had no memory of the assaultive behaviour.

The Crown sought to introduce a videotaped statement made by the complainant to police, which contained detailed descriptions of the alleged assaults.

The Crown also sought to introduce evidence of the accused's prior discreditable conduct, including prior assaults and property damage.

The trial judge admitted the videotaped statement as hearsay evidence based on necessity and reliability, but rejected the application to introduce evidence of prior conduct, finding insufficient probative value.

This is a preliminary inquiry decision concerning three accused charged with unlawfully importing cocaine into Canada contrary to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The Crown sought to commit all three accused as parties to the importation offence and/or of conspiring to import cocaine.

The evidence established that a young woman was provided with a free trip to Jamaica, where she was instructed to return with a suitcase containing over 1.4 kilograms of cocaine.

The court applied the test for preliminary inquiries, examining whether there was sufficient evidence upon which a reasonable jury could return a verdict of guilty.

The decision addresses the roles of each accused in facilitating the importation scheme, the doctrine of innocent agents, and the elements of conspiracy.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm after stabbing his best friend with the neck of a broken vodka bottle during an intoxicated argument.

The accused claimed self-defence, asserting he feared grievous bodily harm from the complainant.

The court rejected the self-defence claim, finding that although the accused may have reasonably believed force was being used or threatened, the act of stabbing was not done for the purpose of defence and was unreasonable in the circumstances.

The court found the stabbing was an act of anger rather than self-defence, particularly as the complainant was turning to walk away when stabbed.

The accused was found guilty as charged, with the assault causing bodily harm conviction stayed.

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

The Crown alleged the accused drove while impaired after consuming alcohol and subsequently crashed her vehicle into a ditch.

The defence raised Charter violations regarding the right to counsel, arguing the accused did not understand her rights and that the police failed to adequately explain them or inform her of duty counsel availability.

The court found a breach of section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and excluded the breath test evidence.

On the impairment charge, the court found the Crown had not proven impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the accused's cognitive disability from a prior head injury and alternative explanations for observed symptoms.

The accused was convicted after trial of operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol causing death (two counts), operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol causing bodily harm (four counts), and failing to comply with a recognizance.

The offences arose from a motor vehicle accident on August 29, 2010, on Six Nations Territory near Brantford, Ontario, in which the accused's impaired driving resulted in the deaths of two passengers and serious injuries to three other passengers and the driver of the other vehicle.

The accused was sentenced to six years imprisonment (with five months pre-trial custody credited), with concurrent sentences on the bodily harm counts and a 15-year driving prohibition.