Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCJ

This criminal trial concerned a charge of sexual assault against Ommema Ibeto.

The central issue was the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, S.B., given significant inconsistencies and memory issues over time.

The court applied the W.D. analysis to the accused's testimony.

Ultimately, the court found the complainant's evidence to be unreliable and incredible, leading to a finding of not guilty.

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 defendant brought applications for a stay of proceedings based on violations of Charter rights.

The primary application was under Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging denial of the right to trial within a reasonable time.

The defendant also brought applications under Section 7 of the Charter and Section 35 of the Provincial Offences Act regarding disclosure.

The court found that the applicable delay was 21 months and 21 days, exceeding the 18-month ceiling for Ontario Court of Justice proceedings.

The court determined the case was not particularly complex and that the Crown failed to remedy disclosure issues.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

Police discovered 55.69 grams of cocaine in an apartment where the offender arrived with a key.

The offender had no prior criminal record, was employed in his father's business, and was the primary caregiver for his father who suffered from Parkinson's disease, dementia, and colon cancer.

The Crown sought five months incarceration; the defence sought a suspended sentence with probation or, alternatively, a conditional sentence.

The court imposed an eight-month conditional sentence with the first five months under house arrest and the final three months with a curfew, followed by one year of probation with 100 hours of community service.

The accused was charged with two counts of sexual assault and two counts of sexual touching of a person under 16 years of age.

The Crown alleged that between December 2018 and April 2019, the accused engaged in oral sex with a 14-year-old girl, and on July 5, 2019, was found in bed with the same girl who was then 15 years old and pregnant.

The accused claimed he believed the complainant was 17 years old and that his conduct on July 5, 2019 was motivated by concern for her pregnancy.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, determining that he did not take all reasonable steps to ascertain the complainant's age and that his evidence was not credible.

The accused pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated assault and one count of assault with a weapon arising from three separate stabbing incidents that occurred on October 31-November 1, 2018, in Waterloo.

The incidents involved unprovoked attacks on three victims using a knife, with one victim suffering life-threatening injuries.

The court imposed a sentence of 42 months concurrent, reduced to 17 months after credit for 501 days of pre-trial custody on an enhanced basis.

The sentence was further subject to a three-year probation order with conditions including counselling, employment requirements, and a 20-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant brought a section 8 Charter application challenging the police seizure of his vehicle's Event Data Recorder (EDR) without prior judicial authorization or consent following a serious motor vehicle collision.

The Crown alleged dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily harm based on speed data extracted from the EDR.

The court found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the EDR and its contents, and that the warrantless seizure and extraction of the data constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court excluded the evidence under section 24(2), finding that the police acted in bad faith by deliberately ignoring established Ontario jurisprudence requiring either a search warrant or owner consent before accessing an EDR.

The accused was charged with breaching a probation order by contacting her daughter via email four times between May 22 and July 14, 2019.

The Crown was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was bound by the probation order with the alleged term and that she was the author of the emails.

The accused claimed she sent the emails merely to see her daughter's name and did not expect them to be received because she believed the email accounts were inactive.

The court rejected this explanation as lacking credibility and found that the contents of the emails and the pattern of repeated messages demonstrated the accused intended them to be received.

The court found the accused guilty of the breach.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving, driving with excess blood alcohol concentration, and dangerous driving following a traffic stop.

The Crown withdrew the first two charges, leaving only the dangerous driving charge for trial.

The court found that the defendant's driving over approximately 25 kilometres, characterized by sustained lane violations, erratic speeds, failure to maintain control, and resistance to police intervention, constituted dangerous driving under the Criminal Code.

The defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of dangerous driving.

A 16-year-old youth intentionally drove a stolen pickup truck the wrong way on Highway 401 at high speed, intending to commit suicide by colliding with a transport truck.

Instead, he collided head-on with a vehicle driven by a 30-year-old man, killing his 30-year-old fiancée and seriously injuring him.

The youth pleaded guilty to manslaughter, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and taking a motor vehicle without consent.

The Crown sought an adult sentence of four and a half years.

The court found that while the youth's moral culpability was high due to the planning, premeditation, and recklessness involved, a youth sentence of three years Intensive Rehabilitative Custody and Supervision was sufficient to hold him accountable while promoting rehabilitation and reintegration.

The defendant was convicted in absentia of three counts under the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act: failing to comply with prescribed standards of care by not providing adequate food and water to animals, and permitting an animal to be in distress.

The defendant owned two snakes, one of which was found dead and infested with maggots, while the other was alive but lethargic, without food or water.

The defendant admitted to owning the snakes and stated they had stopped feeding and he did not seek veterinary care.

The court imposed fines, a prohibition order on owning snakes, and a restitution order.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and "over 80" following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown withdrew the impaired driving charge during trial.

The defence raised Charter applications alleging violations of sections 7, 8, and 10(b).

The Crown conceded a section 8 breach regarding the timing of the approved screening device breath demand.

The court found that while a technical Charter breach occurred, the evidence should not be excluded under section 24(2) as the breach was minor, made in good faith, and had limited impact on the accused's rights.

The court also found the breath tests were conducted "as soon as practicable" within the statutory requirement.

The accused was convicted of the "over 80" offence.

The defendant was charged with theft over $5,000, fraud over $5,000, and criminal breach of trust arising from her misappropriation of $4,000 belonging to her elderly father, for whom she held a Power of Attorney.

She was found guilty of theft under $5,000, fraud under $5,000, and criminal breach of trust.

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

The court imposed a suspended sentence with 18 months probation, finding that neither a conditional discharge nor a conditional sentence was appropriate given the aggravating factor of breach of fiduciary duty, the defendant's lack of remorse, and the principles of sentencing under the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a recusal application during the second day of trial on an assault charge, alleging that the trial judge had previously heard a guilty plea from the accused on a related offence approximately four and a half years earlier.

The defence argued that a judge who has heard a plea cannot preside over a subsequent trial involving the same accused and requested that the judge recuse himself and declare a mistrial.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the accused failed to establish a reasonable apprehension of bias based on the prior judicial dealings.

The defendant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of an Information to Obtain (ITO) used to obtain a search warrant at a preliminary inquiry.

The defendant was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, possession of a controlled substance, and possession of proceeds of crime.

The court dismissed the Dawson application, finding that the cross-examination was not necessary to enable the defendant to make full answer and defence, and that the information provided by a confidential informant was substantially corroborated by independent police surveillance evidence.

The appellant was convicted of stunt driving under the Highway Traffic Act for transporting a person in the rear storage area of a 1997 RAV 4 SUV without a seatbelt.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the storage compartment of an SUV does not constitute a "trunk" as defined in Regulation 455, and that strict construction principles should apply in favour of the defendant.

The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the storage compartment of an SUV falls within the definition of "trunk" under the regulation, as it is not designed for human occupancy and lacks proper seating and structural protections.

The court ruled on the admissibility of hearsay evidence consisting of statements made by the victim to first responders immediately following an alleged assault.

The victim's statements were made to paramedics, firefighters, and police officers at the scene and were offered to prove the truth of their contents.

The court admitted the statements under both the classical res gestae exception to the hearsay rule and the principled approach based on necessity and reliability.

The victim testified at trial but could not recall the events, making the hearsay statements necessary to establish what occurred.

The accused was charged with impaired driving after being stopped by police following a report from two civilian witnesses who observed the accused's vehicle being driven in an erratic manner.

The Crown called evidence from the two civilian witnesses and two police officers.

The accused pleaded not guilty and challenged the credibility of the civilian witnesses.

The court found the civilian witnesses to be credible and reliable, and determined that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol consumption.

The court found guilt on the impaired driving charge.

The accused applied for an adjournment of a trial scheduled for February 26, 2013.

During a judicial pre-trial held in camera, defence counsel raised concerns about police and Crown conduct in relation to an unrelated matter involving the accused from January 2013.

The court found that the concerns about the separate matter did not provide grounds for adjournment of the current trial, which involved complaints by two civilian witnesses from an earlier date.

The court refused the adjournment application and ordered the trial to proceed as scheduled, with witnesses directed not to attend before 11:00 a.m. to accommodate counsel's scheduling conflict.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault level one (section 266 of the Criminal Code) arising from alleged incidents on July 30, 2010 and between October 1 and November 30, 2008.

The victim was the accused's former wife.

The Crown proceeded summarily and the accused pleaded not guilty.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, police officers, and the accused and his adoptive father.

The court applied the R. v. W.D. analysis and found the accused guilty on both counts based on the credibility of the complainant's evidence, corroborating photographic evidence of injuries consistent with bite marks, and the lack of credibility in the accused's categorical denials.