Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCJ

The defendant was charged with sexual assault alleged to have occurred between December 30, 2018 and January 6, 2019.

Both the defendant and complainant were hospital employees.

The defendant brought a motion under sections 278.3 and O'Connor of the Criminal Code seeking production of documents held by the hospital and a workplace investigator relating to the complainant's allegations and the investigation conducted.

The court determined whether the documents constituted "records" under section 278.1 of the Criminal Code and whether they should be produced to the court for review.

The court addressed the definition of "records," the reasonable expectation of privacy, the exemption for records made by persons responsible for investigation or prosecution, and the test for likely relevance under section 278.5.

The applicant sought to transfer her criminal trial from the Ontario Court of Justice at Orangeville to the Davis Courthouse in Brampton pursuant to Section 599 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant was charged with five criminal offences including impaired operation and breach of probation arising from an incident in the Town of Caledon.

The court dismissed the motion, upholding a longstanding regional policy established in 1997 that transfers Caledon criminal trials to Orangeville.

The court found that the policy was expedient to the ends of justice and that the applicant's personal inconvenience did not warrant departure from the established practice.

The accused was charged with sexual assault and sexual touching of a child under sixteen years of age.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the video-taped statement and trial testimony of the nine-year-old complainant, who alleged multiple incidents of inappropriate touching over a six-month period.

The accused denied the allegations, acknowledging only accidental contact during tickling games and one inadvertent kiss during horseplay.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including numerous inconsistencies regarding the timing and nature of the alleged incidents, poor quality of the video-taped statement with 123 indiscernible passages, and concerns about potential parental influence on the child's perception of the accused.

The court acquitted the accused on both counts, finding the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty of eight offences including sexual assault, assault, assault with a weapon, threatening death, and criminal harassment, all relating to the same complainant in a domestic context.

The defendant absconded from the jurisdiction after trial but before sentencing.

The court proceeded to sentence in absentia under section 475(1)(b)(i) of the Criminal Code, finding sufficient information about the defendant's personal circumstances from trial testimony to impose a fit sentence.

The court imposed a global sentence of 39 months (three years and three months) with emphasis on denunciation and deterrence, finding that rehabilitation could not play a role given the defendant's flight from justice.

The defendant applied for a mistrial after the Crown cross-examined him regarding three previous drinking and driving charges during trial on an "Over 80" charge.

The Crown's stated purpose was to establish the defendant's familiarity with the criminal justice system in response to his Charter voir dire evidence regarding his understanding of the right to counsel.

The court found that while the Crown did not act with improper purpose, the questions were highly prejudicial with minimal probative value.

The court declared a mistrial, finding that a reasonable apprehension of bias existed such that a fully informed observer could reasonably conclude the trial was unfair.

The defendant pleaded guilty to five counts of Fraud Over $5,000 contrary to section 380(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The frauds involved the misappropriation of approximately $575,583.64 from the Kendalwood Montessori School between December 2012 and May 2014, and fraudulent investment schemes involving multiple complainants.

The defendant, a chartered accountant, exploited positions of trust and personal relationships to commit the offences.

The court imposed a sentence of 25 months incarceration on the Kendalwood fraud count (consecutive to other counts), ordered restitution of $450,602.64, imposed a fine in lieu of forfeiture of $450,602.64 payable over six years, and issued a ten-year prohibition order restricting the defendant's ability to provide financial and investment advice.

A sentencing decision involving a 67-year-old offender convicted of 102 counts of sexual abuse against 18 young male victims over a 30-year period spanning 1965 to 1995.

The offender systematically exploited positions of trust as a teacher's assistant, coach, and carnival worker to gain access to vulnerable children, whom he groomed and sexually abused.

The offender had previously been convicted in 1998 for similar offences against 24 other boys from the same time period, for which he received a six-year sentence.

The court imposed a sentence of six years, taking into account the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation over 15 years in the community without reoffending, his consistent use of anti-libidinal medication, his guilty pleas, and his engagement with support services, while balancing the need for denunciation and general deterrence.

The applicant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine, hydromorphone, and cannabis marijuana while an inmate at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Center.

The central issue concerned missing video surveillance recordings of common areas within the facility.

The applicant brought a Charter application alleging a violation of section 7 rights based on an unreasonable pre-charge delay and the loss of evidence.

The court found that the applicant's section 7 Charter rights were violated due to the negligent investigative approach and failure to preserve evidence, but declined to grant a stay of proceedings, instead imposing a significant sentence reduction as an alternative remedy.

The accused pleaded guilty to four counts relating to child sexual exploitation: attempt to live on the avails of a person under 18, exercise control, procuring, and child luring.

The accused, along with two co-accused, lured three young girls aged 14 and 15 into prostitution at the Scarborough Town Centre.

The Crown sought 5 years imprisonment less pre-trial custody credit, while the defence sought 4 years.

The court imposed a global sentence of 4 years, finding this to be the minimum necessary to meet sentencing principles.

The court credited 1,157 days of pre-trial custody at the 1.5:1 ratio, resulting in 303 days remaining to be served, followed by 2 years probation and a 10-year s.161 order.

The accused was charged with impaired care or control of a motor vehicle and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The court found that the accused's section 10(b) Charter right to counsel was violated due to special circumstances arising from his limited English proficiency and the police's failure to secure an interpreter.

The evidence of the refusal was excluded and that charge was dismissed.

However, the court found the accused guilty of impaired care or control based on evidence that he occupied the driver's seat, attempted to move the vehicle, and displayed signs of impairment.

The accused was charged with impaired driving following an incident at a schoolyard where police responded to an assault complaint.

Officers observed the accused and another male quickly enter a vehicle and attempt to drive away.

The vehicle was stopped by police.

Breath samples taken approximately two and a half hours after the incident showed readings of 117 mg and 118 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The defence raised the issue of bolus drinking, arguing that an open bottle of Hennessy cognac found in the back seat of the vehicle provided an air of reality to the defence.

The Crown's toxicologist testified that the accused's blood-alcohol level at the time of care and control would have been between 115 and 165 mg per 100 ml of blood, based on standard elimination rates.

The court found no credible evidence of bolus drinking and convicted the accused.

The Crown sought reconsideration of a preliminary inquiry judge's ruling denying a section 540(7) application to file transcripts of witness statements.

The initial judge had rejected the application as inadequately presented and lacking sufficient grounding.

The Crown subsequently renewed the application with a fuller record.

The presiding judge ruled that reconsideration was permissible, finding that the initial ruling was not a final determination on the merits of section 540(7) admissibility but rather a rejection of the application as presented.

The judge held that interlocutory evidentiary rulings can be reconsidered where there is no prejudice to the defence and where the interests of justice support reconsideration, particularly in preliminary inquiries where evidentiary errors cannot be appealed.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with an excess blood alcohol concentration.

The Crown conceded a Charter breach occurred when the constable delayed approximately twenty minutes in reading the approved instrument demand to the accused.

The court applied the s. 24(2) Charter analysis from R. v. Grant and admitted the breath sample evidence, finding that the seriousness of the breach was minimal (simple human error), the impact on the accused's Charter-protected interests was slight to moderate, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits strongly favoured admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The defendant sought to strike a guilty plea to careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant had appeared unrepresented at a judicial pre-trial and entered a guilty plea without legal advice.

Subsequently, upon retaining counsel, the defendant moved to strike the plea.

The court found the plea was voluntary and unequivocal but determined it was not fully informed due to the complexity of the charge, the extensive disclosure (87 pages), the defendant's limited education (grade 10), and the absence of legal representation.

The court struck the guilty plea and ordered the matter to proceed to trial.

The applicant sought to strike her guilty pleas to assault, uttering a death threat, and breach of recognizance, alleging the pleas were not fully informed, voluntary, or unequivocal.

The applicant claimed she was not properly advised of the consequences of her pleas and that she maintained her innocence.

The court found the guilty pleas were valid, noting the applicant had appeared multiple times before the court, participated in a thorough judicial pre-trial, had full disclosure, and was assisted by section 486 counsel.

The court rejected allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel and found the applicant's subsequent change of position was motivated by concerns about implications in concurrent family court proceedings.

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

The central issue was whether the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was violated when the officer did not wait for a second consultation with duty counsel before obtaining the second breath sample.

The defendant became distressed after the first breath sample and expressed confusion about legal advice received, requesting to speak with counsel again.

The officer placed a call to duty counsel but did not wait for a callback before proceeding with the second sample.

The court found no Charter violation occurred and admitted the breath sample evidence, resulting in a conviction.

The defendant was charged with exceeding 80 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood (exceed 80) on March 13, 2013.

The sole issue was whether the defendant's right to be free from arbitrary detention under the Charter was violated when a police officer conducting sobriety checks targeted motorists leaving a liquor store parking lot.

The court held that location-based targeting of police enforcement efforts does not constitute a Charter violation.

The court distinguished between group targeting (which requires careful scrutiny) and location targeting (which raises no Charter concerns).

The court found that even if location targeting required justification, the LCBO parking lot location had a rational connection to impaired driving concerns.

The defendant was found guilty.

The Corporation of the City of Guelph was charged with failing to ensure that a wall in a workplace was capable of supporting all loads to which it may be subjected, contrary to section 25(1)(e) of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The charge arose from the collapse of a privacy wall in a women's washroom at a municipal park in 2009, which resulted in the death of a fourteen-year-old student.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt because the charging section incorporated the outdated concept of "allowable unit stresses," which had been superseded by limits states design methodology in 1997.

The court also found that even if the actus reus had been established, the City had exercised due diligence in issuing the building permit by reasonably relying on the professional stamps of the architect and engineer, and that the City was not required to conduct further investigation based on the engineer's involvement in a prior unrelated project.

A youth charged with sexual assault and criminal negligence causing death pleaded guilty to both offences.

The Crown sought an adult sentence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, arguing the offences were sufficiently serious.

The court considered psychiatric evidence, a pre-sentence report, victim impact statements, and the youth's background.

The court rejected the Crown's application for an adult sentence, finding that the presumption of diminished moral responsibility had not been rebutted and that a youth sentence was appropriate and sufficient for accountability.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause death, assault, and sexual assault with a weapon following an incident on March 6, 2011.

The accused pled guilty to two counts of breach of probation and not guilty to the remaining four counts.

After a trial spanning multiple dates, the court found the accused guilty of uttering threats to cause death to the complainant and a third party, assault, and sexual assault (as a lesser included offence, not sexual assault with a weapon).

The decision reflects a pattern of domestic violence within a long-term relationship marked by substance abuse and repeated breaches of court orders.