Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCJ

JG was charged with one count of sexual assault against his former spouse, CG, occurring between February 21 and 23, 2021.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the accused, applying the W.(D.) framework.

The accused's testimony was found to be inconsistent and unreliable, particularly regarding his memory of events and prior statements to police.

The court accepted the complainant's evidence that she did not consent to the sexual activity, finding the accused's actions reckless and willfully blind.

The court rejected the defence's argument that the complainant's initial characterization of the events as "manipulation" or delay in reporting negated the lack of consent, noting that such reactions can be common in close relationships.

The accused was found guilty.

Constable Travis Buckle was charged with assault causing bodily harm after attempting to arrest Dale Delaney on outstanding warrants at Victoria Hospital's emergency department.

During the arrest, Delaney landed face-first on the floor, suffering serious facial injuries.

The Crown argued the arrest was unlawful due to failure to announce the reason for arrest, and alternatively that excessive force was used.

The court found the arrest was lawful, the officer reasonably believed Delaney was attempting to flee, and the force used was justified under section 25(1) of the Criminal Code.

The officer was acquitted.

The accused was charged with sexually assaulting the complainant in an automobile on November 1, 2018, while driving the complainant home from a medical appointment in Toronto.

The complainant testified that the accused repeatedly touched his genitals and inner thigh over his clothing while driving, despite the complainant pretending to sleep.

The accused denied any sexual touching, claiming he only shook the complainant's shoulder to wake him and kept both hands on the wheel due to heavy traffic.

The trial judge found the complainant credible but harbored reasonable doubt about his reliability given his drowsy state and the practical impossibility of the accused simultaneously driving safely in rush hour traffic while engaging in the alleged conduct.

The accused was acquitted.

Vixman Construction Ltd. was convicted of two regulatory offences under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following the death of worker William Dean Maguire, who fell approximately 3.6 metres from a work surface at Billy Bishop Toronto Island Airport on March 27, 2018.

The Crown alleged that the company failed to ensure proper fall arrest system configuration and failed to arrange the fall arrest system so that a worker could not hit the ground or an object below the work.

The court imposed a $125,000 fine plus a 25% Victim Fine Surcharge and an 18-month probation order with conditions requiring the company to publish safety information, produce an educational video, and implement enhanced fall protection procedures.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood on January 30, 2018.

A York Regional Police officer observed the defendant entering an intersection as the light turned red, conducted a traffic stop, and detected the smell of alcohol on her breath.

The defendant provided a failed Approved Screening Device (ASD) test and was arrested.

Two breath samples at the station showed readings of 110 milligrams.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the stop and the admissibility of the breath test results under the Charter.

The court found the officer credible, accepted that there was a valid reason for the traffic stop and reasonable suspicion of impairment, and admitted the breath test evidence.

The defendant was found guilty.

The accused was charged with theft of a custom-made anniversary ring valued at approximately $37,900 and possession of stolen property.

The ring went missing from a locked jewelry cabinet during a service call by the accused at the victim's residence.

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence including the accused's presence at the residence, his subsequent visits to jewelry stores and pawnbrokers, and witness testimony identifying a ring matching the description of the stolen ring.

The accused testified he brought his father's sapphire ring for appraisal and denied taking the victim's ring.

The trial judge acquitted the accused, finding that while he was probably guilty, the Crown had not proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly due to concerns about the reliability of key witness testimony regarding identification of the ring.

A young person was charged with four counts arising from a stabbing incident in a school parking lot, including assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and weapons dangerous.

The Crown relied on testimony from the complainant, a witness, and the complainant's mother.

The defendant was alleged to have aided an adult perpetrator under section 21(1)(b) of the Criminal Code or to have acted pursuant to a common purpose under section 21(2).

The court found the Crown's evidence unreliable and insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Critical evidence, including the alleged weapon (a taser baton), was never recovered by police.

The court acquitted the defendant on all charges.

A fourteen-year-old youth was charged with second degree murder as a party to the offence (instigator) in connection with the stabbing death of a fifteen-year-old victim.

The Crown sought detention under section 29(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The court found that while the youth had no prior criminal record, extensive Children's Aid Society records documented a pattern of severe and escalating violence toward his mother since May 2017, including assaults with weapons, threats, and dangerous behavior.

The court determined that detention was necessary for public protection and the safety of the victim (the mother), finding a substantial likelihood the youth would commit serious offences if released.

The court rejected the proposed release plan involving the mother and family members as sureties, finding they could not adequately control the youth's violent behavior and impulsivity.

The defendant, a subcontractor specializing in underground construction and grouting, was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) following the death of a worker and serious injury to another when a drill rig collapsed at a Toronto Transit Commission subway extension project at York University.

The charges alleged failures to provide an adequate work platform for the drill rig, to ensure the platform could support loads in accordance with good engineering practice, and to operate the machine in accordance with the manufacturer's manual.

The court found the defendant guilty of Count 5 (failure to design an adequate work platform by failing to identify soil bearing capacity as required by manufacturer specifications) but acquitted on Counts 6 and 7.

The court determined that while the defendant transmitted manufacturer specifications to the general contractor, it failed to follow up and verify that the soil's bearing capacity had been adequately assessed before operating the rig.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm to Marlon Haynes, assault and robbery with respect to Tanika McLeod, arising from a nightclub altercation in Oshawa.

The court found the defendant guilty of assaulting Tanika McLeod but acquitted him of the assault causing bodily harm to Marlon Haynes and the robbery charge.

The court rejected the defendant's testimony regarding his flight from police, finding it demonstrated consciousness of guilt, but accepted his explanation that he mistakenly picked up the complainant's property believing it to be his own.

The accused was charged with three counts of robbery and three counts of unlawful confinement arising from a single incident on August 20, 2013, involving three teenage victims.

The Crown's case relied primarily on identification evidence from one victim who made tentative pre-trial identifications through internet photographs and a police photo line-up, coupled with circumstantial evidence including the accused's use of the nickname "Konvict," which matched the name used by the robber during the incident.

The court found the identification evidence credible and reliable despite its equivocal nature, and convicted the accused on all counts.

The defendant was convicted of three counts of trafficking in crack cocaine.

The court imposed a sentence of three years on count one (trafficking nine ounces), concurrent on count two (trafficking three ounces), and one year consecutive on count three (trafficking 2.1 ounces with co-accused).

The defendant received 1.5 days credit for each day of pre-trial custody.

A 109 order for ten years and a non-communication order with respect to a co-accused were also imposed.

The sentencing balanced denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives with proportionality and rehabilitation considerations, given the defendant's youth and first penitentiary sentence.

The offender pleaded guilty to defrauding her employer of over $219,000 over a five-year period using three separate methods, including forging a colleague's signature on cheques.

The Crown sought an 18-23 month custodial sentence with restitution and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court imposed a one-year custodial sentence, finding that a conditional sentence would be inconsistent with the fundamental purposes of sentencing, particularly denunciation and deterrence in cases involving breach of trust.

The court also imposed restitution orders and a fine in lieu of forfeiture.

The accused was convicted of preventing or endeavouring to prevent an elector from voting at the federal election held on May 2, 2011, contrary to the Canada Elections Act.

The accused, as communications director for the local Conservative candidate in Guelph, was a major and active participant in a scheme involving approximately 7,000 automated telephone calls directing targeted non-Conservative supporters to false polling locations.

The court imposed a sentence of 9 months imprisonment followed by 12 months probation, emphasizing that general deterrence and denunciation were the primary sentencing principles given the serious nature of interference with the democratic electoral process.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and drive over 80 milligrams.

The Crown alleged the accused was observed driving erratically in the early morning hours near a bar in Toronto's Entertainment District, exhibiting signs of impairment including bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, and poor coordination.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples showing 133 mgs per 100 millilitres of blood.

The accused testified he had consumed only 3-4 shots of vodka and attributed his appearance and behavior to fatigue and nervousness rather than alcohol impairment.

The court found the officer had reasonable and probable grounds for the arrest and breath demand, the Intoxilyzer was functioning properly, and the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was convicted on both charges.

The appellants were charged with a hunting offence under the Provincial Offences Act for allegedly harvesting a moose out of season.

At trial, they brought a Charter application alleging a violation of section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and seeking advanced funding for defence witnesses and counsel fees under section 24(1).

The trial court dismissed the Charter application.

The appellants appealed the dismissal.

The appeal court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the dismissal of a pre-trial Charter motion is not a final order appealable under section 116 of the Provincial Offences Act, and that advanced funding does not constitute "costs" within the meaning of section 116(1)(e).

The defendant was charged with impaired driving following a traffic stop in Toronto.

Police observed the defendant driving at excessive speed in a residential zone, making a rolling stop, and exhibiting signs such as bloodshot eyes and an odour of alcohol.

Upon exiting his vehicle, the defendant appeared to have difficulty.

However, video recordings of the defendant at the police station approximately 20 minutes after arrest showed no signs of impairment.

The court found that while the Crown established the defendant had consumed alcohol, the totality of the evidence did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his ability to drive was impaired.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit following a single-vehicle accident on January 15, 2011.

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

The court dismissed the Charter application and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The court found that police had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and make a breathalyzer demand, that the accused's right to counsel was properly respected, and that the Crown proved impairment and the blood alcohol readings beyond a reasonable doubt.

The over 80 charge was stayed on the basis of the Kienapple principle, with conviction entered on the impaired operation charge.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with blood-alcohol content exceeding eighty milligrams per one hundred millilitres of blood, contrary to sections 253(1)(a) and 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused admitted guilt to both charges.

However, the court found that the police violated the accused's Charter rights under sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b) by arbitrarily detaining him solely based on his residence in the Northwest Territories, conducting an unreasonable strip search, and failing to inform him of the reason for his continued detention or his right to counsel.

The court granted a stay of proceedings as the appropriate remedy, finding that the cumulative effect of the Charter breaches warranted this exceptional remedy despite the seriousness of the offence and the strength of the Crown's case.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his wife on July 14, 2009 and assaulting his son on February 6, 2011, both incidents occurring in the family home.

The court found the defendant guilty of assaulting his wife but acquitted him of assaulting his son.

The wife's testimony regarding the 2009 incident was found credible and corroborated by photographic evidence of injuries.

The son's testimony regarding the 2011 incident, while establishing that the defendant caused injury, was found to be consistent with an accidental rather than intentional assault, as the son had persistently crowded his father and the defendant was entitled to physically move him away.