Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCJ

The defendant, Thisock Seevaratnam, was charged with Impaired Operation and 80 plus Operation.

The trial addressed several Charter issues, including reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, the informational component of the right to counsel (s. 10(b)), police questioning post-assertion of right to counsel, insufficient efforts to contact counsel of choice, and lost video evidence (s. 7 violation).

The court found a s. 10(b) violation for failure to contact counsel of choice (Peter Connelly) and a s. 7 violation for lost video evidence, but admitted the breath evidence under s. 24(2) of the Charter, finding no irreparable prejudice to the defence.

Ultimately, the court found the defendant guilty of both charges, concluding that impairment was proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of evidence.

The accused was charged with multiple offences, including prowl at night, obstruct police, escape lawful custody, and assault police causing bodily harm, following an interaction with police investigating a suspicious person report.

The court dismissed all charges except the assault charge due to lack of evidence.

On the Charter application, the court found egregious police misconduct, including unlawful detention, excessive use of force (tasering a fleeing, unarmed suspect), racial profiling, and severe breaches of the right to counsel.

Finding that the police conduct fell into the residual category of cases where state conduct undermines the integrity of the justice system, the court granted a stay of proceedings on the remaining assault charge under s. 24(1) of the Charter.

Following trial, the defendant was convicted of breach of trust by a public officer contrary to section 122 of the Criminal Code and attempt to obstruct, pervert, or defeat the course of justice contrary to section 139(2) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown sought a conditional sentence of nine months, while defence counsel sought a conditional discharge with six months probation.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of three months to be served in the community, finding that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest and that a suspended sentence would be insufficient, while a conditional sentence was consistent with the fundamental purpose and principles of sentencing.

The Crown brought applications to quash preliminary inquiry requests made by defendants before new provisions limiting preliminary inquiries came into effect on September 19, 2019.

The new provisions restrict preliminary inquiries to cases where the maximum penalty is at least 14 years imprisonment.

The defendants faced indictable offences with maximum penalties less than 14 years.

The court considered whether the new section 535 of the Criminal Code applied retrospectively to eliminate jurisdiction over previously valid preliminary inquiry requests.

The Crown argued the amendments were purely procedural and applied retrospectively.

The defence argued the court retained jurisdiction over validly requested inquiries.

The court found itself bound by a Superior Court decision granting the Crown's certiorari application in a related case and allowed the Crown's applications, finding the defendants' preliminary inquiry requests to be of no force and effect.

A 23-year veteran Toronto Police sergeant was charged with two counts of sexual assault arising from incidents on September 24, 2015 and November 1, 2015.

The accused offered rides home to two young women leaving bars in the Entertainment District and allegedly touched them on their inner thighs without consent.

The accused denied the allegations, claiming he offered the rides out of concern for the women's safety.

The trial judge found both complainants credible and rejected the accused's evidence, finding his explanations implausible and inconsistent with his actions.

The judge found the accused deliberately failed to follow police policies and procedures to conceal his conduct.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault arising from an attack on a vulnerable victim with Asperger Syndrome at a shopping mall.

The Crown applied for a publication ban on the victim's identity pursuant to section 486.5 of the Criminal Code.

The court granted the publication ban, finding that it was in the interest of the proper administration of justice to protect the victim's identity and privacy, balancing the victim's vulnerability and the risk of harm against the principles of open court and freedom of the press.

The defendant was charged with impaired care or control and exceed 80mgs following a police investigation on his driveway.

The defendant advanced Charter arguments challenging the lawfulness of his detention and arrest.

The court found that the police officer had lawful authority under the Highway Traffic Act and common law to detain the defendant on his driveway to check sobriety, and that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving.

However, the court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's ability to drive was impaired by alcohol.

The defendant was acquitted of impaired care or control but convicted of exceed 80mgs based on the breath samples.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a head-on collision on Highway 11 south of Temagami on January 18, 2012.

The defendant's southbound vehicle crossed into the northbound lane and collided with the victim's vehicle.

The court conducted a new trial following an appeal.

The defendant was acquitted after the court found that while the vehicle crossed into the opposing lane, the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's driving fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent person in the circumstances.

The court found that slippery road conditions and the rapid unfolding of events, combined with gaps in the evidence regarding speed, braking, and the pre-collision event, created reasonable doubt as to careless driving.

The defendant was convicted of Over 80 driving following a serious motor vehicle collision on September 2, 2016 in Bracebridge.

The defendant's pickup truck collided with a sedan and struck the grounds of the Riverside Inn, causing significant property damage.

The defendant had a blood alcohol concentration of 140 and 130 mg per 100 ml of blood.

As a first-time offender with a poor driving record and history of alcohol-related incidents, the court imposed a custodial sentence emphasizing denunciation and general deterrence in impaired driving cases.

The accused pleaded guilty to fraud over $5,000 and breach of probation.

She had committed a large-scale breach of trust fraud involving 134 unauthorized cheques totalling $463,824.42 while employed as a bookkeeper/controller.

This was her third conviction for similar offences involving breach of trust fraud.

The court imposed a penitentiary sentence of three and a half years for the fraud charge, plus one month consecutive for the breach of probation charge, along with a 10-year prohibition order and a restitution order for the outstanding balance.

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

The accused sought to exclude evidence of Intoxilyzer test results pursuant to section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing that the approved screening device demand was not made "forthwith" and that his right to counsel was infringed.

The court found no Charter violations and admitted the evidence.

The accused was convicted based on reliable breath test results showing 100 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The applicant was charged with operating a motor vehicle over 80 contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The applicant brought a section 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings on the basis that the right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The court applied the new framework established in R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27, which sets a presumptive ceiling of 18 months for trials in provincial court.

The net delay was 14 months and 3 days, falling below the ceiling.

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite proceedings and that the case did not markedly exceed reasonable time requirements.

The application was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to six charges of voyeurism, mischief, and unlawfully in a dwelling house.

The offences involved the surreptitious videotaping and photographing of multiple female victims in various settings, including public places, workplaces, and private residences.

The accused had a prior conviction for voyeurism in 2011 and was assessed as a moderate risk for sexual recidivism.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence, rejecting a conditional sentence despite defence submissions, emphasizing the need for denunciation, specific deterrence, and general deterrence.

The court also imposed a three-year probation order with strict conditions, including no contact with victims, restrictions on electronic devices, and mandatory participation in treatment programs.

The accused was charged with care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and while having a blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit, contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and (b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused was found unconscious in the driver's seat of a parked vehicle.

The Crown conceded that the accused was seated in the driver's position and that his ability to drive was impaired with blood alcohol over the legal limit.

The sole issue was whether the accused had care or control of the vehicle.

The court found that the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under section 258(1)(a) by establishing on a balance of probabilities that he did not occupy the driver's seat for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion.

The court further found that the Crown failed to prove de facto care or control, as the requisite realistic risk of danger was not present.

The accused was acquitted of both counts.

A worker employed by a subcontractor was electrocuted and killed while operating a Hydrovac truck near energized overhead electrical lines on a project for Ottawa Hydro.

The Ministry of Labour charged Ottawa Hydro with five counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and Construction Projects Regulation, alleging failures to ensure safe work procedures, designate a competent signaller, establish written procedures, and take reasonable precautions regarding electrical hazards.

The court found Ottawa Hydro guilty on counts one, two, and four, but dismissed count three and stayed count five.

The court determined that despite extensive training and safety protocols, Ottawa Hydro failed to provide adequate on-site supervision and monitoring of the subcontractor's operations in a high-risk electrical environment.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol.

The accused brought a Charter application challenging the lawfulness of the police entry onto her property.

The officer attended at the accused's residence in response to a dispatch report of a possible impaired driver.

The property was secured by a motorized metal gate at the end of a 200-metre driveway, with intercom and security camera systems.

The officer entered the property by following a security guard through the gate without explicit permission.

The court found two Charter breaches: an unlawful entry onto the property in violation of section 8 rights, and an arrest without reasonable and probable grounds.

The court excluded all evidence obtained after the officer passed through the gate, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was charged with two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance: (1) being away from his place of residence without his surety, and (2) possessing cellular phones and other prohibited communication devices.

The trial examined surveillance evidence from police officers and testimony from the defendant's brother.

The court found the defendant not guilty on count 1 due to ambiguity in the written recognizance regarding whether the condition was actually imposed, and guilty on count 2 based on credible police observations of the defendant in possession of a cellular telephone.

The accused was convicted of six counts: criminal harassment, failure to comply with bail conditions (three counts), and disobey court order (two counts).

The offences arose from the accused's persistent attempts to contact his former partner following their separation, including threats of suicide and confrontation with police.

Despite police intervention, court orders, and incarceration, the accused continued to violate no-contact provisions through collect calls and letters.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 79 days (after credit for pre-trial custody) followed by two years of probation with strict conditions including no contact with the victim, a 200-metre exclusion zone, weapons prohibition, and mandatory counselling.

At a preliminary inquiry, two accused were jointly charged with weapons offences, possession of proceeds of crime, and possession of cannabis for trafficking purposes.

The Crown withdrew charges for trafficking and proceeds of crime.

The accused Lacroix conceded sufficient evidence for committal on remaining charges.

The accused Adatia challenged committal on all charges except possession of 26.3 grams of marijuana found in plain view.

The court found that circumstantial evidence regarding a firearm and brass knuckles found in a bedroom drawer and closet was insufficient to establish knowledge and control by Adatia.

The court held that mere proximity of her passport to the firearm did not reasonably support an inference of knowledge or control.

Adatia was committed only on the plain view marijuana possession charge.

The accused was charged with three counts of impaired driving causing bodily harm and three counts of operating a vehicle with blood alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit where bodily harm was caused.

Two counts were dismissed at the close of the Crown's case due to lack of evidence of bodily harm.

The court found that the accused operated a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol concentration of approximately 180 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood, more than twice the legal limit.

The collision was caused solely by the accused's impaired driving, including tailgating, failure to stop at a yellow light, and attempting to pass other vehicles at high speed through an intersection.

The accused was convicted on all remaining counts.