Human Rights - ONCJ

The applicant brought a motion alleging a breach of their right to a timely trial under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The applicant was charged with sexual assault on February 24, 2019, and was arrested on March 2, 2019.

Trial dates were initially set for April 6-9, 2020, but were adjourned due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

New trial dates were set for January 4-7, 2021.

The central issue was how much delay attributable to the pandemic should be deducted from the total delay calculation.

The applicant argued that only three months (the period of court closure) should be deducted, while the Crown argued that the entire nine-month period from the first trial date to the second trial date should be deducted as an exceptional circumstance.

The court found that reasonable measures to mitigate the delay had been taken and deducted nine months from the net delay, resulting in a remaining delay of 12 months and 21 days, below the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with robbery at gunpoint, pointing a firearm, using an imitation firearm during the commission of an offence, theft of a motor vehicle, driving while prohibited, failing to comply with bail, and possessing weapons and ammunition while prohibited.

The Crown's case relied primarily on the complainant's identification of the accused as the person who robbed him at gunpoint on a rural road.

The defence raised an alibi defence, arguing the accused was at a pharmacy during the relevant time.

The trial judge found the alibi evidence incredible and rejected it, drawing adverse inferences from the late disclosure and the accused's failure to testify.

However, the judge found reasonable doubt regarding who actually drove the stolen vehicle away from the scene, noting evidence suggesting the complainant's female companion may have been the driver.

The judge acquitted on the robbery and firearm charges but convicted on the driving-related offences.

The judge also dismissed a Charter application regarding lost security video footage, finding no actual prejudice to the defence.

Six band members of Pikangikum First Nation challenged the unavailability of intermittent sentences for mandatory minimum drinking and driving offences, arguing the practical impossibility of compliance due to geographic isolation violated their Charter rights to equality, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, and constituted an abuse of process.

The court found the provision violated section 15 of the Charter as it discriminated against on-reserve members of the First Nation based on an analogous ground.

The Crown's undertaking to finance transportation to the jail rendered the applications moot, but the court addressed the constitutional issues given their public importance and impact on future cases.

The accused was charged with willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group (homosexuals) by distributing DVDs with accompanying cover jackets containing statements such as "God hates the wicked and will destroy them with war; famine and death; the wicked includes sex-perverts; Christ has cursed Ontario for turning a blind eye to sexual perversion; God's wrath is on all who show compassion to her kind and commands good government to put her to death." The Crown proved all elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused's defence that the statements were religious opinion based on biblical interpretation was rejected.

The court found the materials constituted a clear call to action for violence against the identifiable group and did not fall within the scope of protected religious expression or freedom of expression under the Charter.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was charged with operating a conveyance while impaired by alcohol and having a blood alcohol level of 80 mg or more within two hours of operating a conveyance.

The trial proceeded as a blended voir dire.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of breath test evidence on multiple grounds: that the approved screening device demand was not made immediately; that his s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached by an eight-minute delay in informing him of that right; and that the Intoxlyzer test was not administered as soon as practicable.

The court found a breach of s. 10(b) rights and excluded the breath test evidence under s. 24(2) due to a pattern of systemic failures by the Ottawa Police Service to immediately advise detainees of their right to counsel.

However, the defendant was found guilty of impaired operation of a conveyance based on evidence of his driving pattern, physical observations, and the presence of alcohol in the vehicle.

The accused sought judicial interim release (bail) following charges including discharging a firearm with intent to wound/endanger life, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and careless use of a firearm.

The Crown sought detention on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused was captured on video surveillance discharging a firearm toward Highway 401 during a shooting incident at a restaurant.

He subsequently attended hospital with a gunshot wound.

The court found the accused failed to meet his onus on the secondary ground due to his criminal history involving firearms, the seriousness of the current allegations, and concerns about the reliability of the proposed sureties.

The court also found detention necessary on the tertiary ground to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given the gravity of the offence, strength of the Crown's case, and the accused's disregard for previous court orders and weapons prohibitions.

The accused brought a motion for a finding that his right to trial within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter was breached, and sought a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with sexual assault.

The total delay from the swearing of the information to the anticipated end of trial was 608 days (19 months and 29 days).

After deducting defence delay of 42 days and a discrete event of 12 days, the net delay was 554 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling by 7 days.

The court found no exceptional circumstances to justify the delay and granted the motion for a stay of proceedings.

The applicant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged breach of his Charter right under section 11(b) to be tried within a reasonable time.

The trial was scheduled to conclude on January 8, 2021, which would be 18 months and 7 days from the commencement of proceedings on July 1, 2019, exceeding the presumptive 18-month ceiling established in Jordan.

The applicant demonstrated no defence delay and made sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings.

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay, particularly regarding the complainant's unavailability due to high school examinations, which was foreseeable given the nature of the charges.

The court found the Crown fell short of its obligations to anticipate scheduling problems and take reasonable steps to avoid them.

A stay of proceedings was granted.

The Crown brought an application under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code seeking an order to allow three police witnesses to testify remotely via videoconference rather than in person at the courthouse.

The accused was charged with impaired driving, over 80, and possession of marijuana, and had brought a Charter application alleging multiple breaches of rights.

The defence opposed the remote testimony application, arguing that the officers' evidence was contentious and credibility was in issue.

The court granted the Crown's application, finding that COVID-19 constituted exceptional circumstances justifying remote testimony, provided that the quality of audio and video transmission would not jeopardize the fairness of the hearing.

The court imposed ten conditions on the remote testimony, including that only one witness be present in the boardroom at a time, that witnesses use headphones, and that witnesses not communicate with each other until all testimony was complete.

A young person was charged with multiple firearms offences following the discovery of a loaded semi-automatic firearm and ammunition in a satchel upon his person.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude the firearm on the basis that it was obtained in violation of his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Crown and defence agreed that if the evidence was admitted, the accused would be found guilty; if excluded, he would be acquitted.

The court found that the investigative detention was arbitrary, the searches were unlawful, and the accused was denied his right to counsel.

The court concluded that admission of the evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and excluded the firearm, resulting in acquittal on all counts.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and excess blood alcohol following a traffic stop.

The Crown's case relied on breath samples showing blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit.

However, the court found that the arresting officer lacked objectively reasonable and probable grounds for arrest, breaching the accused's rights under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Additionally, the police failed to facilitate the accused's right to counsel of choice under section 10(b) by ignoring his explicit request to call his mother to obtain his lawyer's contact information.

The court excluded the breath evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding the breaches were serious and the impact on the accused's rights was significant.

Both the impaired operation and excess blood alcohol charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with two counts of assault against his girlfriend.

The Crown proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt based on the complainant's credible testimony regarding an assault in October 2018.

However, the court stayed the proceedings due to lost evidence.

The police failed to preserve the audio portion of the complainant's videotaped statement to police, and no meaningful alternative record was created.

The court found this constituted unacceptable negligence in preserving disclosable evidence and violated the accused's Charter right to make full answer and defence, as the lost statement was the only prior account available to test the complainant's credibility at trial.

The accused, a young Aboriginal first offender, was convicted of impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg/100 ml of blood.

She brought constitutional challenges under sections 15 and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The section 15 challenge alleged that Ontario's failure to proclaim curative discharge provisions violated equality rights by discriminating against Aboriginal offenders.

The section 12 challenge alleged that the mandatory minimum sentence was grossly disproportionate, particularly given the requirement to enter a conviction and the applicant's Aboriginal background and Gladue principles.

The court dismissed both constitutional challenges and imposed a sentence of a $1,200 fine, a 15-month driving prohibition, and two years probation with mandatory alcohol counselling.

The defendant was charged with exceed 80 (driving with blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood) on December 17, 2017.

The defence raised Charter arguments alleging violations of sections 8, 9, 10(a), and 10(b), and challenged the constitutional validity of the presumption of identity in transitional cases when paired with the new presumption of accuracy.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and the constitutional challenge, finding no violations of the defendant's rights and that the presumptions of identity and accuracy operate on parallel tracks without conflict in transitional cases.

The accused was charged with driving while impaired by alcohol and driving with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg% following a single motor vehicle accident on the Gardiner Expressway.

The trial involved multiple Charter applications, including claims under sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b), as well as procedural challenges regarding delayed disclosure and the timing of new Charter allegations.

The court dismissed all Charter claims and found the accused guilty on both counts based on credible police evidence, proper grounds for the approved screening device demand, and reliable breath sample results.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample.

The Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused contested the substance of both charges and brought multiple Charter motions challenging the reasonable and probable grounds for the breath demand, alleging a change in jeopardy requiring a second consultation with counsel, and arguing the refusal was incomplete due to lack of opportunity to consult counsel.

The court rejected all Charter arguments and found the accused guilty on both counts.

The accused was found asleep in a vehicle parked on the side of Highway 400 with the engine running.

A police officer detected an odour of alcohol and conducted an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test at the roadside, which led to further testing and charges of Over 80 and Impaired care or control.

The impaired count was dismissed.

The defence challenged the ASD demand as lacking reasonable suspicion and argued the demand was not made forthwith, constituting a breach of section 8 of the Charter.

The court found the demand was based on reasonable suspicion and was made in a timely manner.

The Charter application was dismissed and the accused was found guilty of care or control with blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The accused was charged with eight firearms offences following the discovery of a loaded prohibited firearm during a search warrant execution at an apartment.

The Crown's case relied entirely on two statements allegedly made by the accused: one in which he claimed ownership of the firearm while detained with other occupants, and another to police regarding the firearm's location and colour.

The court found that the first statement was involuntary, having been induced by police threats that all detainees would be jailed unless someone admitted ownership.

The court also found reasonable doubt regarding whether the second statement was made at all.

With no evidence linking the accused to the firearm beyond these statements, the court acquitted on all charges.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and driving with excess alcohol following a RIDE checkpoint stop on June 21, 2019.

The Crown presented evidence from three police officers and a qualified technician demonstrating clear signs of impairment at the roadside and breath test results of 131 and 113 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood.

The defendant challenged the admissibility of the breath test results on the basis that he was not properly advised of his right to counsel due to alleged language comprehension issues.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, rejecting the Charter application and finding no language barrier to the defendant's understanding of his rights.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and refusing to provide a breath sample following a traffic stop on October 21, 2017.

The defendant challenged the charges on Charter grounds, alleging violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b).

The court found that while the arrest was lawful and the defendant's section 9 rights were not breached, the police violated the defendant's right to counsel of choice under section 10(b) by failing to adequately facilitate contact with counsel of choice and by not informing the defendant of the option to contact an alternative lawyer.

The evidence of refusal was excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

However, the court found the defendant guilty of impaired driving based on the officer's observations and video evidence from the police division.