Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences - ONCJ

The defendant brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at his residence, alleging a violation of his Charter right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The search warrant was based on information from a confidential human source (CHS) regarding cocaine trafficking, corroborated by police surveillance.

The defendant sought to cross-examine the affiant regarding the lottery winnings that explained his lifestyle.

The court found that the search warrant was facially valid based on the totality of circumstances, including the CHS information and extensive police surveillance observations consistent with drug trafficking activity.

The motion to exclude evidence was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to three trafficking-related charges involving significant quantities of carfentanil, fentanyl, heroin, and cocaine.

The court denied the accused's application for bail pending sentence, finding that he posed a substantial likelihood of reoffending and that detention was necessary to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The court imposed a global sentence of 12 years, with concurrent sentences on remaining counts, after considering mitigating factors including the accused's youth, family support, and employment history, as well as aggravating factors including his prior trafficking conviction, the dangerous nature of the drugs, and the large quantities involved.

The court also granted presentence custody credit, lockdown credit, and COVID-19 related credit.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with bail conditions requiring him to reside at a specified address in Kleinburg and remain within that residence at all times unless in the presence of his surety or attending court on a specific matter in Scarborough.

Police attended the residence to conduct a bail compliance check and were informed by the surety and his wife that the accused was not present.

The accused did not present himself during the half-hour visit.

The defence conceded the Crown proved the bail conditions and identification but argued the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was not in the residence.

The court found the Crown proved guilt based on circumstantial evidence and the only reasonable inference was that the accused was in breach of his recognizance.

The accused pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm following an unprovoked attack on two strangers outside a Tim Hortons coffee shop in Richmond Hill.

The offender stabbed both victims with a blade, causing serious injuries including stab wounds to vital organs.

The court imposed an 18-month custodial sentence for aggravated assault and a concurrent 6-month sentence for assault causing bodily harm, with credit for pretrial custody, lockdowns, and restrictive bail conditions.

The court also imposed a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, and non-communication order.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault following a road rage incident on Ogilvie Road in Ottawa.

The defendant cut off the complainant's vehicle, stopped abruptly, and exited her car to confront the complainant.

After an aggressive verbal altercation, the defendant pushed the complainant, causing her to fall to the roadway and sustain serious injuries including a fractured pelvis and broken pubic bone.

The defendant argued the charge should be dismissed on grounds that her action was reflexive rather than voluntary, or alternatively that she acted in self-defence.

The court found the defendant's actions were voluntary and rejected the self-defence claim, finding the force used was not reasonable in the circumstances.

The defendant was convicted of aggravated assault.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon (knife), carrying a weapon for a purpose dangerous to the public peace, and uttering threats following an altercation in which he cut the complainant under the chin.

The central issue was whether the accused acted in self-defence.

The court found the complainant to be an unreliable witness with significant credibility issues, while the accused was found to be credible and consistent.

The court accepted the accused's evidence that he carried the knife for personal protection against the complainant, who had previously attacked him and made repeated threats.

The court found that the accused's use of the knife was a reasonable defensive response to the complainant's aggressive conduct and punch to the face.

All charges were dismissed.

The accused was charged with assaulting a peace officer lawfully engaged in the execution of his duty contrary to s. 270(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and attempting to disarm a peace officer contrary to s. 270.1(1) of the Criminal Code.

The charges arose from an incident on January 27, 2018, when police responded to two 911 calls regarding a domestic dispute at the accused's residence.

The trial judge found that the police were lawfully executing their duty when they entered the residence to investigate the welfare of the female occupant.

The judge found that the accused assaulted Sergeant Dick by pointing his finger in the sergeant's face and pushing his palm against the sergeant's chest, and that the accused attempted to grab the sergeant's taser during the ensuing struggle.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm to his former common-law spouse.

The Crown alleged that the accused intentionally slammed a washing machine door on the complainant's finger, causing a tear requiring five stitches.

The court found that while the accused deliberately slammed the door out of frustration during an argument, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intended to catch the complainant's finger or was reckless as to whether the door would injure her.

The accused was acquitted due to reasonable doubt regarding the element of intent.

The trial judge considered a bail application brought under Criminal Code section 523(2) by an accused who had been in custody for nearly two years awaiting trial.

The judge determined that section 523(2) is a bail review provision, not a bail hearing provision, and that the accused had never had an initial bail hearing.

The judge concluded that he lacked jurisdiction to conduct a de novo bail hearing under section 523(2) because that provision only applies where there is a prior order to vacate.

The judge declined to convert the hearing into a section 515 application, finding that a hearing conducted without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be reconstituted by agreement.

The judge directed the accused to pursue a section 515 bail application before another justice.

The applicant challenged the validity of two search warrants executed at his residence on Charter section 8 grounds.

The applicant was originally convicted of possession of child pornography following a nine-day trial.

Upon reopening the trial, the court examined whether the police exceeded the scope of the first warrant by seizing CDs and DVDs that the issuing justice had expressly prohibited.

The court found that the issuing justice's oral directions limiting the search to digital cameras and memory cards were binding on the police, and that the seizure of the Montreal CD and other storage devices constituted over-seizure in violation of section 8 of the Charter.

The court further found that the second warrant could not have been issued without the information derived from the unlawfully seized Montreal CD.

The court excluded the evidence and dismissed the charge.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration in excess of 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The Crown's case relied on breath samples obtained pursuant to an Intoxilyzer demand, which was based on an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test result.

The accused challenged the lawfulness of the seizure of the breath samples, arguing that the officer lacked an objective basis for believing the ASD was in proper working order, thereby breaching section 8 of the Charter.

The court found that the officer had reasonable grounds to believe the device was operating properly based on his knowledge of the fail-safe feature, the device's successful activation and operation, and the reasonable assumption that his unit would provide a properly functioning device.

The Charter application was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with two counts of assault arising from events on March 25, 2012, when police attended his Toronto apartment in response to his call requesting removal of an unwanted guest.

The complainant and defendant had engaged in an intimate affair; she arrived for a one-night visit that extended to four days.

Following heated arguments about her affair with another man and her refusal to leave his apartment despite repeated requests, physical altercations ensued.

The defendant was arrested despite being the one who called police.

The Crown alleged multiple assaults; the defendant claimed self-defence and defence of property.

The trial judge found the complainant's testimony highly unreliable and internally inconsistent, with multiple material contradictions across her three different accounts.

The defendant's evidence regarding a single defensive restraint incident was substantially corroborated by the complainant's own testimony.

The judge acquitted the defendant on both counts, finding reasonable doubt as to guilt and establishing an air of reality for both self-defence and defence of property claims.

A Court Prisoner Security Officer (CPSO) was charged with assault causing bodily harm under section 267 of the Criminal Code after forcefully pushing a prisoner into a concrete wall in a dry cell, causing dental injuries.

The Crown alleged the accused used excessive force beyond what was necessary.

The Defence argued the accused was justified under section 25 of the Criminal Code in using force to place a resistant prisoner into custody.

The court found the accused guilty, determining that the force used was intentional and excessive, driven by frustration and a desire to assert authority rather than by legitimate security concerns.

The accused was charged with assault for striking his 15-year-old girlfriend in the face during the early morning hours of April 1, 2013, in Mississauga.

The complainant initially lied to police, claiming the injuries resulted from a soccer accident, but eventually disclosed the truth during a lengthy police interview.

The accused denied the assault and claimed the complainant was uninjured when they parted.

The trial judge found the accused's evidence incredible and accepted the complainant's account, finding that the injuries were inflicted while the complainant was alone with the accused.

The judge convicted the accused of assault.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm and assault with a weapon following an incident on August 21, 2011, at the back of his restaurant.

The defendant claimed self-defence, asserting he believed the complainant was the individual who had burglarized his van four days earlier.

The court found the defendant's evidence not credible and determined he acted out of anger and mistaken identity rather than in genuine self-defence.

The defendant was found guilty of both charges.

The accused brought a motion to quash three search warrants and exclude evidence obtained from their execution.

The warrants were issued based on an Information to Obtain (ITO) that relied primarily on an unconfirmed tip from a confidential informant regarding drug dealing outside a bar, supplemented by limited surveillance observations and an undercover entry into the accused's apartment.

The court found that the ITO lacked sufficient credible and reliable evidence to establish reasonable and probable grounds for the warrants.

Additionally, the manner of execution—including an unannounced forced entry and ramming of doors—was unreasonable.

The court excluded all evidence obtained from the searches under section 24(2) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, finding that admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute due to inadequate police disclosure, sloppy investigative work, and excessive force during execution.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm against her step-mother following a domestic altercation on February 19, 2012.

The complainant suffered a significant injury to her eye requiring stitches.

The Crown alleged the defendant intentionally assaulted the complainant.

The defendant testified she reacted with a single blind punch after the complainant grabbed and bent back her fingers during a physical struggle.

The court found that while the defendant caused serious injury, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she intended to strike the complainant as she did.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm and breaches of bail and probation conditions.

After being initially detained and then released on a Superior Court recognizance, the accused was arrested for alleged breaches of his no-alcohol and house arrest conditions.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary ground under section 515(10)(b) of the Criminal Code, arguing that release posed a substantial likelihood of further criminal offences endangering public safety.

The court found the accused's breaches serious and his proposed release plan insufficient to address concerns regarding alcohol abuse and anger management issues.

The court ordered detention, finding the accused had failed to meet his onus on the balance of probabilities.

The defendant was charged with producing marijuana and possessing marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

He brought a Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings or exclusion of evidence, alleging violations of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

The defendant challenged the validity of search warrants executed at his residence and two industrial units, his arrest, and warrantless searches of his person and vehicle.

The court found that the search warrants were validly issued based on reliable information from a confidential informer that was corroborated through police investigation.

The arrest was lawful and the seizure of keys from the defendant's person was a valid search incident to arrest.

The court dismissed the Charter application but excluded evidence seized from the residence under section 24(2) due to the seriousness of police carelessness in drafting the Information to Obtain and the significant impact on the defendant's privacy rights in his home.

Evidence from the industrial units and the keys were admitted.

The accused was charged with sexual assault contrary to section 271 of the Criminal Code.

The complainant testified that she awoke to find the accused engaged in sexual activity with her while she was asleep in her bedroom.

The accused claimed the complainant was kissing him back and that he believed she had consented.

The court found that the complainant did not consent as she was incapable of consenting while asleep, and that the accused failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain consent.

The court rejected the defence of honest but mistaken belief in consent, finding no air of reality to the defence given the circumstances and the accused's self-induced intoxication.