Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - ONCJ

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while her blood alcohol level exceeded 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood.

The defence raised two arguments: first, that the arresting officer failed to copy his scratch notes, resulting in lost evidence that should trigger a stay or exclusion of evidence; and second, that the absence of scratch notes rendered the officer's testimony unreliable regarding grounds for arrest.

The court found that while the failure to copy scratch notes constituted a breach of section 7 of the Charter, the officer's testimony was sufficiently detailed and reliable to establish that the notes were transcribed accurately.

The court found no remedy was warranted in a judge-alone trial and convicted the accused.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol (over 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood).

Paramedics observed a transport trailer truck weaving on the Queen Elizabeth Way and the 427 highway on February 22, 2017, and called 911.

Police located the defendant in the truck at a truck park in Vaughan.

The defendant was arrested and subjected to breath testing.

The Crown proved care and control of the motor vehicle, that breath tests were taken as soon as practicable, and that the breath readings (122 and 114 milligrams) were properly obtained and admissible.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant was charged with driving with excess alcohol following a roadside stop on May 25, 2016.

The defendant alleged several Charter breaches and sought to exclude breath test results.

The principal issue was the extent to which police must attempt to facilitate contact with counsel of choice before offering duty counsel as an alternative.

The court found no breach of the defendant's right to counsel under section 10(b) of the Charter, as the defendant had expressed willingness to speak to duty counsel if his preferred counsel could not be reached, and the officer made reasonable efforts to contact the preferred counsel before offering the alternative.

The breath test results were admitted into evidence, and the defendant was found guilty of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop on September 24, 2015.

The defendant challenged the lawfulness of his arrest and sought to exclude breath test results on the grounds that his Charter rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(a) were infringed.

The court found that the officer lacked objective reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant for impaired driving, as the observed driving infractions were minimal and the alleged signs of impairment (slurred speech, weaving) were not credibly established.

The court also found breaches of the defendant's section 10(a) and 10(b) rights due to a 14-15 minute delay in providing reasons for detention and access to counsel.

While the section 10 breach was found not to warrant exclusion of evidence, the section 8 breach was found to be serious and, combined with the lack of evidence of impairment, led to the exclusion of the breath test results.

The defendant was acquitted of both charges.

The defendant corporation was convicted of operating a commercial motor vehicle in excess of its registered gross weight under section 125 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The original Justice of the Peace imposed a fine of $5,866.00 using the mandatory sliding scale.

The defendant appealed the conviction, which was dismissed, but was permitted to make further submissions on sentencing.

The court considered whether exceptional circumstances under section 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act justified reducing the fine below the mandatory minimum.

The court found that a combination of errors—one by the Service Ontario office in issuing an incorrect licence and one by the defendant in failing to verify the licence—constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a 25% reduction in the fine.

The defendant was charged with driving while impaired and driving with excess alcohol on June 22, 2015.

He brought a Charter application under Section 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that his right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed and seeking a judicial stay of charges.

The total delay from charge to trial completion was 13 months and 8 days, falling below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court applied the transitional framework and found that the case did not take markedly longer than it reasonably should have, considering the complexity of impaired driving cases and acceptable institutional delay under the previous Morin framework.

The application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving, impaired driving, and refusal to take a breathalyzer test following a traffic stop.

The Crown withdrew the dangerous driving charge at trial.

The court found that the arresting officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the defendant for impaired driving and make a breath demand.

The officer's evidence contained significant discrepancies when compared to video evidence from the police cruiser, including mischaracterizations of the defendant's driving, minimization of the force used during the stop, and failure to account for the defendant's obvious language difficulties.

The court acquitted the defendant of the refusal charge, finding the breath demand was invalid.

The accused pleaded guilty to impaired driving (third offence), assault with intent to resist arrest, driving while disqualified, and related offences arising from incidents on December 10, 2013 and December 16, 2015.

The accused had a significant criminal record including two prior impaired driving convictions and two prior dangerous driving convictions.

The court imposed a total sentence of 362 days in custody, reflecting the seriousness of the offences, the accused's recidivist nature, and the need for general deterrence.

The court also imposed a lifetime driving prohibition and a ten-year weapons prohibition.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a traffic stop.

The defendant challenged the arrest on the grounds that the officer lacked reasonable and probable grounds and that his Charter rights to counsel were breached due to his status as a non-native English speaker.

The court found that the officer had reasonable and probable grounds based on the totality of observations including erratic driving, signs of impairment, and admission of alcohol consumption.

The court also found no breach of the right to counsel, determining that the defendant had adequate English proficiency and was properly informed of his options.

The defendant was convicted of both offences.

The accused was charged with driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol.

The Crown presented evidence from a police officer and breath technician regarding the arrest and breath testing procedures conducted on September 9, 2014.

The defence challenged whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable, arguing that delays in obtaining a breath technician resulted in the presumption of identity not applying.

The court rejected this argument, finding that the delay was reasonable and that the Crown could rely on the presumption of identity.

The court also considered a toxicologist's report and rejected the defence argument regarding bolus drinking.

The accused was found guilty of driving with excess alcohol.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of a defendant charged with permitting fill to be placed on property without a permit, contrary to the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville By-Law No. 2008-016-RE.

The trial justice misdirected himself on the applicable legal issue, focusing on whether the defendant transported new fill rather than whether fill was placed or dumped.

Both parties agreed the decision should be set aside.

The appellate court declined to amend the information to substitute "dumping" for "placing" and enter a conviction, finding that the defendant would be prejudiced by such an amendment at the appellate stage.

The court remitted the matter for retrial and permitted the Crown to amend the information to include the alternative means of committing the offence.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a motor vehicle collision.

The Crown's case relied on breath test results showing 160 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The central issue was whether the defendant was in care and control of the vehicle at the time of the collision and whether the breath tests were taken within the required two-hour window.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the precise time of care and control, rendering the breath test evidence inadmissible.

Additionally, the court found insufficient evidence of impairment based on the officers' observations and the toxicologist's opinion alone.

The defendant was acquitted on both charges.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following observations of erratic driving on Highway 400.

The Crown sought to rely on breath test results taken approximately 113 minutes after the alleged offence.

The court addressed three key issues: whether the officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest for impaired driving; whether the first breath test was taken within two hours of the offence; and whether the Crown proved impaired driving beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds existed, the two-hour requirement was satisfied, and the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on civilian witness observations of repeated lane weaving, officer observations of physical signs of impairment, and breath test results.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm after pushing a taxi cab driver on December 31, 2012, causing the driver to fall and fracture his leg.

The Crown sought six months custody followed by probation, while the defence sought a conditional sentence of six to eight months followed by probation.

The court imposed a sentence of four months in custody followed by probation, finding that a conditional sentence was not appropriate given the vulnerability of the victim, the seriousness of the injuries, and the accused's prior assault conviction.

The court also ordered restitution of $2,000.

The defendant was charged with four counts of sexual offences against a complainant who was between 11 and 13 years old between 1993 and 1995, when the defendant was between 25 and 27 years old.

The charges included sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defence conceded that no consent defence under section 150.1 of the Criminal Code applied.

The trial turned on credibility and the burden of proof.

The court found the complainant to be a credible witness whose testimony was corroborated by her friend's observations and attendance at the defendant's home.

The defendant's evidence was rejected as lacking credibility due to inconsistencies and implausibilities.

The Crown stayed one charge at the conclusion of trial.

The defendant was found guilty of sexual assault, sexual interference with a person under 14 years of age, and invitation to sexual touching.

The defendant sought to strike his guilty plea to sexual assault, arguing that the plea was not voluntary and that he did not fully understand the consequences.

The defendant claimed language barriers and pressure from counsel influenced his decision to plead guilty on the eve of trial.

The court found that the plea was voluntary, unequivocal, and informed.

The defendant had received comprehensive written instructions, was assisted by a Russian interpreter, and had undergone a thorough plea comprehension inquiry.

The court rejected the application to strike the guilty plea.

The accused, a 62-year-old man, was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference against his granddaughter.

The alleged incident occurred during a family gathering at the complainant's home.

The complainant testified that the accused entered her bedroom at night and placed her hand on his exposed genitals on two occasions.

The accused denied all allegations and testified that he never entered the complainant's bedroom.

The court found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including material discrepancies with her prior statements, inconsistencies with corroborating witnesses regarding timing and details, and concerns about potential reinforcement of her testimony through discussions with her parents.

The court also noted the implausibility of the alleged conduct given the crowded household, the presence of multiple adults, the cluttered bedroom layout, and the accused's health limitations.

The accused was acquitted.

The Crown sought to call three witnesses (Jason Chapple, Angelo Paggliariccia, and Nicola Marchese) at the sentencing hearing of the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to possessing a firearm while prohibited from doing so.

The witnesses, represented by counsel, applied to quash the subpoenas.

The defendant supported the application.

The Crown sought to establish that the offence was committed in association with a criminal organization (Hells Angels) under section 718.2(a)(iv) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that the Crown had not established that the witnesses could provide material evidence beyond the already-admitted facts and that allowing their testimony would constitute a fishing expedition.

The subpoenas were quashed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to three offences under section 122 of the Securities Act for trading in securities without registration and in violation of two cease trading orders from the Ontario Securities Commission.

The defendant operated Strategic Gifting Group, which solicited donations for charities, remitted 10% to the charities, and distributed shares in Dixon Perot & Champion Inc. to donors, representing inflated valuations.

The defendant had previously been sentenced to 21 months and 3 years for related securities violations.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 months consecutive to existing sentences, along with probation and restitution obligations, applying the totality principle to avoid a crushing cumulative sentence while maintaining deterrence and denunciation.

The defendant was charged with three counts of assault—one against his stepson and two against his wife.

The Crown alleged that during the five or six days the defendant and his newly arrived wife (sponsored through an arranged marriage) lived together in Canada, he engaged in abusive behavior including pushing, grabbing, and verbal abuse.

The defendant denied all allegations, asserting that he had invested significant funds to bring his wife and stepson to Canada and had no motive to harm them.

The court found the complainant's evidence concerning but problematic, particularly regarding her motives for reporting to police.

The stepson's evidence was deemed unreliable due to inconsistencies with his police statement and concerns about potential coaching.

The defendant's evidence, corroborated by his cousin's testimony, was not seriously shaken on cross-examination.

The court acquitted the defendant on all remaining charges.