Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences - ONCJ

The applicant sought a remedy for alleged violations of her Charter rights, arguing that search warrants for her vehicle and home should be invalidated because they were based partly on information obtained through searches that violated her co-accused's Charter rights.

The applicant alternatively argued she had her own reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone and phone number that were the subject of the impugned searches.

The court ruled on the standing issue only, finding that the applicant lacked standing to attack the underlying warrants.

The applicant could not assert her co-accused's Charter rights, and she failed to establish her own reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone data.

The accused brought a Charter application under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to quash a search warrant and exclude evidence.

The search warrant was obtained to search a residence for crystal methamphetamine based on information from a confidential informant.

The accused challenged both the validity of the warrant and the particularity of the offence listed in Appendix B (which listed powder cocaine instead of crystal methamphetamine).

The court dismissed the application, finding that the issuing justice had sufficient grounds to issue the warrant based on the credible, compelling, and corroborated information from the confidential informant, and that the discrepancy in Appendix B was not a fatal defect.

The applicant was charged with firearm-related offences arising from a search warrant executed by Peel Regional Police.

The applicant sought leave to cross-examine the affiant of the information to obtain the warrant to challenge its validity.

The heavily redacted ITO was reviewed in an in camera, ex parte hearing, and the Crown provided a judicial summary of redacted material.

The applicant proposed five areas of cross-examination.

The court granted limited leave to cross-examine regarding the reliability of the confidential informer's past information, but denied leave on the other four proposed areas: the overall credibility of the informer, the affiant's experience, the identification process used, and the second address mentioned in the affiant's notes.

The accused was charged with drug trafficking offences under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act arising from the execution of a search warrant at his residence.

The accused brought a Garofoli application challenging the validity of the search warrant, alleging that the information to obtain (ITO) was deficient in reasonable grounds and violated his Charter s. 8 rights against unreasonable search and seizure.

The court granted leave to cross-examine the affiant and found that multiple passages in the ITO were materially misleading, including misrepresentations regarding outstanding charges, the alleged discarding of heroin upon arrest, and the inference that the accused walked to the drug transaction from his home.

After excising these passages, the court found that no reasonable grounds remained to support the issuance of the warrant.

The evidence was excluded pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Charter, and the accused ultimately pleaded guilty to a lesser charge.

The accused was charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of his 82-year-old mother and assault causing bodily harm in relation to his aunt.

During an argument at the front door of the family home, the accused pushed his aunt, which caused her to fall into his mother, resulting in his mother falling down concrete stairs.

His mother died in hospital several days later.

The Crown initially pursued a manslaughter charge based on transferred intent but later withdrew this charge after the pathologist's testimony.

The court found the accused guilty of assault causing bodily harm against his aunt and unlawfully causing bodily harm against his mother, rejecting defences of consensual fight, self-defence, and defence of property.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm following an altercation at a Law Ball event.

The Crown alleged the accused sucker-punched the complainant without provocation, causing a laceration requiring stitches.

The defence argued the altercation was a consensual fight that escalated from prior interactions during the evening.

The court found the complainant was not a credible witness, having been evasive and untruthful on numerous material points.

The court accepted the accused's evidence that the fight was consensual, arising from the complainant's inappropriate sexual conduct toward a woman at the event and subsequent verbal and physical escalation between the two men.

The court found the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the assault was unprovoked or that the accused intended to cause serious bodily harm.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with Threaten Death, Intimidation, Obstruct Justice, Disobey Court Order, and Criminal Harassment.

The charges arose from allegations that the accused pressured his estranged spouse over custody and access to their two young children.

The Crown sought to admit evidence of prior discreditable conduct from 2012, including the dissemination of nude photographs of the complainant at her workplace.

The court admitted evidence of the 2012 schoolyard incident as prior discreditable conduct, finding it strikingly similar in detail and highly probative of motive and identity, while excluding other earlier misconduct as insufficiently distinctive.

A Hamilton Police officer with approximately two years of experience was charged with assault causing bodily harm after punching a suspect in the face during an arrest.

The suspect, a 35-year-old man with mental health issues, had spat on the officer.

The officer delivered three punches total: one immediately after being spat upon (conceded as reasonable by the Crown), and two additional punches while the suspect was on the ground and handcuffed.

The court found the latter two punches were excessive and not protected by section 25 of the Criminal Code, as they were delivered in retribution rather than for a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

However, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that either of the two excessive punches caused the suspect's facial fracture, which required surgery.

The officer was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm but convicted of the lesser included offence of assault.

The applicant sought to vary the conditions of a peace bond imposed following a charge of indecent communication.

The peace bond prohibited contact with the complainant and attendance at her residence or place of employment.

The applicant requested permission to attend the Ontario Works office in Vaughan where the complainant was employed.

The court refused the application, noting that alternative Ontario Works offices were available in the applicant's area of residence and that permitting the variation would defeat the protective purpose of the peace bond.

The accused was tried on a single count of breaching condition (iv) of his recognizance of bail, which required him not to be away from his place of residence except in the company of one of his sureties.

The accused was charged with first-degree murder and released on bail with strict conditions including electronic monitoring.

The issue was whether the accused was in breach when he left his surety in a parked car outside a school and entered the building alone to speak with his former basketball coach for approximately 5-10 minutes.

The court found the accused guilty, rejecting arguments that he was in compliance with the condition, that his misunderstanding constituted a mistake of fact rather than law, and that any breach was de minimis.

The accused sought release on bail following charges including forcible entry, carrying a concealed weapon, possession of prohibited weapons, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, aggravated assault, and forcible confinement.

The Crown alleged the accused was the main perpetrator in a violent home invasion and assault that resulted in serious injuries to the victim.

The accused testified in his own defence, claiming limited involvement and self-defence.

The court found the Crown's case reasonably strong but granted bail with stringent conditions, including residence outside Toronto with a substantial surety and monitoring requirements.

At a preliminary inquiry, the Crown sought committal on charges of second degree murder, attempted murder, and aggravated assault arising from a violent street attack on September 30, 2013, outside Sang's Restaurant in Toronto.

The attack involved six assailants attacking three victims, resulting in the death of Danny La from blunt force trauma to the head.

The court found sufficient evidence to commit both defendants to trial on second degree murder and aggravated assault charges, but rejected the attempted murder charge and the Crown's theory of constructive first degree murder based on forcible confinement.

The accused, charged with five indictable offences including assault, mischief, threatening death, and breaching bail conditions, sought release on bail.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the accused had failed to meet his onus under the reverse onus provisions.

The proposed plan of release, involving three sureties and house arrest, was deemed inadequate given the serious nature of the allegations, the accused's apparent disregard for court orders, and the sureties' lack of knowledge regarding the accused's activities and lifestyle.

The court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the accused would commit further criminal offences endangering public safety, particularly that of the vulnerable complainant.

The defendant was charged with mischief, escape from lawful custody, assault causing bodily harm, obstructing a peace officer, and two counts of assaulting a peace officer with intent to resist lawful arrest, arising from an incident at Union Station where he attempted to board a departing GO Transit train.

The Crown abandoned the mischief charge mid-trial.

The court found that the defendant's arrest was unlawful because the transit officers lacked reasonable grounds to believe he had committed mischief.

The court rejected key aspects of the officers' testimony as unreliable and contradicted by video evidence.

Finding the arrest unlawful, the defendant's physical resistance was justified, and he was acquitted of all charges.

The defendants were charged with production of marijuana and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking following a search warrant executed at their residence.

The court found that the search warrant could not have been reasonably granted based on the information before the issuing justice.

The affiant's investigation was characterized by lack of diligence, selective presentation of evidence, and unreliable conclusions.

The court determined that the warrant violated section 8 of the Charter and excluded the evidence pursuant to section 24(2) using the three-part test from R. v. Grant.

Both defendants were acquitted.

At a preliminary inquiry, the defendant was charged with attempted murder under s. 239 of the Criminal Code for an alleged assault on the complainant on August 18, 2014.

The Crown presented evidence of a brutal beating with a wooden board that resulted in serious injuries including a lacerated liver, broken ribs, broken arm, and head injury requiring a three-and-a-half-week coma.

The defendant did not testify but called one witness.

The central issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the specific intent to kill required for attempted murder, or whether the evidence only supported a committal on the lesser charge of aggravated assault under s. 268 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with assault and uttering threats arising from an altercation with his former common-law spouse on his property.

The complainant attended the accused's residence without permission and became upset.

The accused applied force to prevent her from re-entering the house after she allegedly threatened to burn it down.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty of both charges, determining that the complainant was a trespasser and that the accused's use of force was justified under the defence of property provisions of the Criminal Code.

The Crown charged William Pav and Dylan Violo with assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm arising from an incident on College Street in Toronto on January 13, 2013, where the defendants allegedly participated in a swarming attack on Joseph Kau.

A directed verdict was granted on the assault with a weapon charge against Violo.

The trial focused on identification evidence and was corroborated by DNA evidence linking the defendants' clothing and Pav's hands to the victim's blood.

The court found both defendants guilty of assault causing bodily harm but acquitted Pav of assault with a weapon due to insufficient evidence of weapon use.

The accused was charged with marijuana production and possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking.

At trial, the defence sought leave to cross-examine the affiant on the search warrant to challenge its sub-facial validity.

The defence proposed questioning on five points: the specifics of observations made in April 2013, the tip from a confidential human source, the significance of Hydro readings, the significance of FLIR observations, and the absence of confirming observations on the day of arrest.

The court applied the test from R. v. Pires and found that the defence had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that cross-examination on four of the five points would assist in determining the material issue.

However, the court granted leave to cross-examine on the FLIR observation point, finding a reasonable likelihood that such cross-examination would be relevant to the material issue of whether there was a basis for the issuing justice to be satisfied there were reasonable grounds to issue the warrant.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault by wounding and aggravated sexual assault arising from an incident in a First Nation community.

The Crown alleged the accused violently attacked the complainant, causing a skull fracture, loss of teeth, and orbital bone fracture, as well as injuries to the complainant's genitals.

The accused claimed he was justified in using force to defend his partner from what he believed was a sexual assault in progress.

The court found the accused guilty of aggravated assault by wounding but acquitted him of the sexual assault charges, finding that the encounter between the complainant and the accused's partner was consensual and did not constitute sexual assault.