Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCJ

The defendant was charged with careless driving causing bodily harm under section 130(3) of the Highway Traffic Act following a collision on August 2, 2023, on the Queen Elizabeth Way in Oakville.

The defendant merged onto the highway from the Third Line on-ramp and collided with a motorcycle driven by the victim, who suffered life-altering injuries.

The prosecution relied primarily on eyewitness testimony and collision reconstruction evidence.

The defendant was acquitted after the court found reasonable doubt regarding whether the defendant's driving fell below the standard of an ordinarily prudent driver, particularly given evidence of erratic driving by the motorcycle operator before the collision.

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.

The accused was charged with four counts of possession, accessing, and making available child pornography on or about May 29, 2017, and possessing child pornography on November 16, 2017, contrary to sections 163.1(4.1), 163.1(4), and 163.1(3) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's case was entirely circumstantial, based on forensic analysis of electronic devices seized during a search warrant execution.

The accused was found in possession of a Microsoft tablet containing extensive child pornography in readily accessible folders, along with personal documents and photographs.

Skype chats associated with accounts on the device showed transmission of child pornography on May 28, 2017.

The defence raised an alibi for May 28, 2017, supported by the accused's mother and aunt, claiming he was installing air conditioning units at his studio during the relevant time.

The court rejected the alibi evidence and the accused's denials, finding the Crown had proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence.

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 defendants brought a motion to dismiss charges for alleged violations of Town of Fort Erie By-Law 129-90 regarding the use of a public storage facility and cargo containers on their properties.

The defendants argued that the prosecution constituted an abuse of process because similar charges had been brought against them on multiple prior occasions that were resolved in their favour, and that the Town was therefore estopped from continuing the prosecution.

The court rejected the motion, finding no evidence of bad faith, discrimination, or vexatiousness on the part of the Town.

The court held that a prior dismissal in 2013 did not preclude the municipality from ongoing enforcement of zoning by-law violations, and that the defence of legal non-conforming use remained a matter for adjudication at trial.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault, one count of threatening, and one count of assault with a weapon.

The complainant and accused were in a relationship characterized by extensive electronic communications involving discussions of violent sexual fantasies and rape role-play.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The court found that while the complainant's evidence contained significant contradictions and inconsistencies, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the complainant did not consent to the sexual activity.

The court also found that the accused's evidence was consistent and corroborated by the electronic messaging between the parties.

The court noted the unusual factual circumstances, including the complainant's own confusion about her feelings at the time and her subsequent Instagram post stating "it was consensual but consequential."

The accused was charged with operating a vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit (over 80 mgs) and distracted driving contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

The central issue was whether the police violated the accused's Charter section 10(b) rights regarding the right to counsel.

The court found that the police failed to comply with their informational and implementational obligations under section 10(b) by misleading the accused about his right to choose counsel and failing to provide access to a telephone and telephone book.

The court excluded the breath test evidence as a remedy under section 24(2), finding the violation was serious and had significant impact on the accused's Charter rights.

The over 80 charge was dismissed.

The accused was found guilty of the distracted driving charge.

The Crown sought an assessment order under s. 752.1 of the Criminal Code for an offender who pleaded guilty to three counts of assault, one count of assault with a weapon, and two counts of failing to comply with a recognizance.

The Crown indicated its intention to seek either a dangerous offender or long-term offender designation.

The offender had no prior criminal record but exhibited a pattern of repetitive, bizarre stalking and assault behaviour targeting women in apartment building lobbies and elevators over a three-week period in 2016, followed by a breach of bail conditions and a subsequent assault with a pellet gun.

The offender had a documented history of mental illness including schizoaffective disorder, paranoid delusions, and violent ideation.

The defence argued that the offender's conduct was not serious enough to warrant an assessment.

The court found that reasonable grounds existed to believe the offender might be found to be either a dangerous or long-term offender and ordered an assessment.

The accused pleaded guilty to sexual interference of a child under 16 years of age.

The offence involved systematic sexual abuse of an 11-year-old victim over a one-year period from January 2017 to January 2018.

The accused, a 43-year-old family friend residing in the victim's home, engaged in repeated vaginal and anal intercourse, penetration with various objects, and exposure to pornography.

The victim was discovered by a sibling on January 14, 2018.

The court imposed a sentence of 6.5 years imprisonment, considering the serious aggravating factors balanced against the mitigating factor of an early guilty plea.

Following conviction on charges of Attempt to Commit Mischief to Data and Unauthorized Use of a Computer, the defendant, a former Chief of Staff to the Premier of Ontario, was sentenced to four months imprisonment followed by twelve months probation with 100 hours of community service.

The defendant had directed the wiping of computer hard drives in the Office of the Premier to destroy records responsive to Freedom of Information requests and anticipated legislative committee production orders regarding the gas plant controversy.

The court found the offence struck at the heart of democratic accountability and transparency, warranting incarceration despite the defendant's otherwise exemplary character and community contributions.

The defendant pleaded guilty to importing 14 kilograms of hashish, a Schedule II substance, contrary to section 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

At sentencing, the defendant sought a judicial exception from the operation of section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA and section 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code, which precluded him from receiving a conditional sentence.

The defendant challenged these provisions as arbitrary, overbroad, and contrary to sections 7 and 12 of the Charter.

The court found that section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA is overbroad contrary to section 7 of the Charter and cannot be saved by section 1.

The court also found that the combined operation of section 6(3)(a) of the CDSA and section 742.1(c) of the Criminal Code infringes section 7 of the Charter in an overbroad manner and is not saved by section 1.

The defendant was granted a judicial exception permitting him to seek a conditional sentence.

The accused was charged with possession of cocaine for the purposes of trafficking contrary to section 5(3)(a) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, and possession of a prohibited weapon.

The weapons charge was withdrawn during trial.

The Crown alleged that the accused possessed cocaine for trafficking purposes based on surveillance evidence showing him driving a rental vehicle in suspicious circumstances, his tenancy of an apartment where drugs and paraphernalia were found, and the presence of a scale in his bedroom.

The defence argued that the Crown had not proven the requisite knowledge and control for constructive possession, and that other occupants of the apartment could have been responsible for the drugs.

The court found that while the Crown established a drug trafficking operation existed at the apartment, the circumstantial evidence permitted reasonable exculpatory inferences regarding the accused's knowledge and control of the drugs, particularly given the possibility that drugs were recently deposited by another occupant and the limited visibility of drugs from the accused's bedroom.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit.

The Crown presented evidence of erratic driving, observations of impairment by civilian witnesses and police officers, and breath sample results of 260 and 250 mg/100mL of blood.

The accused challenged the detention and sought exclusion of evidence based on Charter violations.

The court found the Crown proved impaired operation beyond a reasonable doubt, rejected Charter violations regarding counsel access, but found an arbitrary detention between the hospital visit and police station release.

However, the court declined to stay proceedings or exclude evidence as the remedy was not warranted.

The accused was convicted on the first count with a stay of proceedings on the second count pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

The applicant brought a Charter section 11(b) application seeking a stay of proceedings for unreasonable delay in a child pornography case.

The applicant was arrested on May 14, 2015, with trial scheduled to conclude on April 13, 2017—approximately 23 months later, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The Crown sought summary dismissal of the application for procedural non-compliance.

The court dismissed the Crown's motion and granted the applicant's section 11(b) application, finding that the delay was presumptively unreasonable and that the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption.

The court found that the Crown's failure to disclose critical forensic evidence until the eve of the preliminary inquiry constituted a breach of disclosure obligations that could not be excused as an exceptional circumstance.

A stay of proceedings was ordered.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excessive blood alcohol concentration (BAC) after registering a "Fail" on a roadside screening device at a RIDE stop and subsequently providing "over 80" Breathalyzer readings.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the Breathalyzer evidence on Charter grounds, arguing that the officer lacked reasonable grounds to suspect alcohol in the defendant's body when making the initial roadside screening device demand, thereby violating section 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court found that the officer had reasonable suspicion based on the odour of alcohol emanating from the vehicle combined with observations of nervousness and slurred speech, satisfying the statutory standard under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code.

The court also found that even if a Charter breach had occurred, exclusion of the evidence under section 24(2) was not warranted.

The defendant was convicted.

At a preliminary inquiry into a charge of second-degree murder, the court determined whether sufficient evidence existed to commit the accused for trial.

The accused was charged with causing the death of a five-month-old infant through head injury while babysitting.

The Crown argued that medical evidence of severe brain injury, combined with evidence of animus and post-offence conduct, supported committal on second-degree murder.

The defence conceded sufficient evidence for manslaughter but argued the medical evidence alone was insufficient to establish the subjective intent required for murder.

The court found that a jury could reasonably infer from the medical evidence of severe repetitive mechanical assault, the ruling out of accident, evidence of animus, and post-offence conduct that the accused possessed the requisite subjective intent for second-degree murder.

The accused was charged with eight sexual offences involving two young complainants, aged three and five years old, who were in his care at his home-based daycare.

The Crown sought to admit the out-of-court statements of both complainants to their parents and police through a Kahn application, arguing necessity and threshold reliability.

The trial judge found that both complainants would be unable to provide coherent testimony and that testifying would cause them undue trauma.

The court admitted the hearsay statements and found them reliable based on the circumstances of disclosure, the complainants' lack of knowledge of sexual conduct, and corroborating details.

The accused's defence was a simple denial.

The trial judge found the complainants' evidence accurate and reliable, and convicted the accused on all counts.

A Section 21 Mental Health Act assessment including a Sexual Behaviours Assessment was ordered prior to sentencing.

The applicant sought disclosure of the identities of two confidential informants whose information formed the basis for a search warrant executed at his residence.

The applicant was charged with possessing a semi-automatic assault rifle and an illegal capacity magazine found in his basement.

He argued that his innocence was at stake and that disclosure was necessary to demonstrate that the items were planted or that one of the informants was a suspect with motive and opportunity to plant the items.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant failed to meet the threshold test requiring him to establish that the information sought was not available from any other source and that he was otherwise unable to raise a reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and excess alcohol following a motor vehicle collision.

The accused brought a Charter application seeking exclusion of breath sample evidence, alleging violations of sections 8 and 10(b) of the Charter.

The court found that while the officer had reasonable suspicion to demand an Approved Screening Device test, the officer breached the accused's section 10(b) rights by failing to provide a Prosper warning and obtain an unequivocal waiver when the accused changed his mind about contacting counsel.

The court excluded the breath sample evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant, owner of a multi-unit residential building, was charged with five violations of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 relating to the Fire Code.

The charges involved: combustible materials stored in a means of egress; obstruction of a means of egress with items on stairs; obstruction of an exterior stairway; failure to maintain an exterior stairway in good repair; and a breach of fire separation requirements between dwelling units.

The defendant raised defenses of temporary storage and necessity, which were rejected.

The court found the defendant guilty on all five counts based on clear photographic evidence and testimony from the Fire Prevention Officer.