Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences - ONCJ

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 applicant sought bail on charges of Break, Enter & Theft, Robbery, and Take Auto without Consent while subject to an undertaking on prior charges.

The applicant had a lengthy criminal record spanning over 20 years, including multiple convictions for violent offences, weapons offences, driving-related offences, and failures to comply with court orders.

The applicant had previously failed to appear in court and escaped lawful custody.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention and the proposed release plan involving two sureties, house arrest, and GPS monitoring.

The court granted bail with strict conditions.

The applicant sought judicial interim release (bail) on multiple charges including fraud related to forged prescriptions, domestic assault, robbery, and breach of recognizance.

The Crown opposed release on secondary grounds, arguing detention was necessary for public protection.

The court granted bail with strict conditions including house arrest, electronic monitoring, and three sureties (the applicant's mother, sister, and father).

The court found that while the applicant's pattern of offending was serious and involved substance abuse, the proposed plan with robust supervision and electronic monitoring sufficiently mitigated the risk to public safety.

The applicant sought judicial interim release on two separate matters involving firearm charges.

The Crown opposed release on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The applicant proposed release to two sureties with strict house arrest, electronic monitoring, and a quarantine period.

The court granted the application, finding that the proposed plan adequately addressed concerns regarding attendance in court, public safety, and confidence in the administration of justice.

The decision considered the strength of the Crown's case, the gravity of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, the proposed sureties' reliability, and the impact of COVID-19 on pre-trial detention.

The defendant was charged with seven serious offences involving child exploitation, including luring for sexual purposes, luring to create child pornography, extortion, and possession and access of child pornography.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds at a judicial interim release hearing.

The court found that the Crown had not met its onus for detention on either ground.

The defendant was released on conditions including house arrest with three named sureties, strict internet restrictions, and no unsupervised contact with minors.

The court considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as one relevant factor but emphasized that the release was not premised solely on pandemic concerns.

The defendant was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his estranged wife.

The defendant admitted striking his wife three to four times in the face, causing significant injuries including two black eyes and broken nasal bones.

The defendant raised a self-defence claim under Criminal Code section 34, arguing he acted to protect his three-year-old son from imminent harm.

The Crown conceded there was an air of reality to the defence.

The court found that the defendant subjectively believed his son's safety was at risk and that this belief was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, including the complainant's prior threat of self-harm, her volatile behavior that evening, and her deliberate destruction of his clothing.

The court concluded the force used was reasonable in the circumstances and acquitted the defendant.

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 applicant brought a motion to exclude evidence obtained from a search warrant executed at a residence, arguing the Information to Obtain (ITO) was deficient and violated section 8 of the Charter.

The applicant contended there were insufficient grounds to establish the credibility and reliability of the confidential informant, inadequate corroboration, and material omissions in the ITO.

The court upheld the validity of the warrant, finding the confidential informant had a history of providing reliable information, the information was sufficiently corroborated through police investigation and surveillance, and the firearm information was compelling and recent enough to justify the warrant.

While the court found the omission regarding withdrawn charges was problematic, it determined this did not invalidate the warrant as there was compelling evidence independent of this omission.

The application was dismissed.

The Crown sought a detention order for an 18-year-old accused charged with eight firearms offences and one drug possession offence.

The accused was found in possession of a loaded 40-calibre semi-automatic handgun with 11 rounds of ammunition in his waistband during a RIDE check.

The defence proposed a strict house arrest plan with parental supervision and a $5,000 monetary pledge.

The court found that while the accused's youth and lack of criminal record were mitigating factors, the serious nature of the allegations, the strength of the Crown's case, and the escalating risk posed by the loaded firearm in a vehicle where drugs were being consumed justified detention under the tertiary ground of section 515(10)(c) to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice.

The accused brought a Garofoli motion to exclude evidence seized during a search of their residence where a Taurus 9mm handgun and over-capacity magazine were found.

The accused challenged the search warrant on the basis that the Information to Obtain (ITO) was legally deficient and breached their section 8 Charter rights.

The Crown conceded that the redacted ITO contained insufficient information to justify the warrant.

The court conducted an in-camera review of the unredacted ITO and a judicial summary prepared by the Crown.

The court found that despite some problematic inclusions by the affiant officer (including irrelevant police interactions, a factually incorrect domestic occurrence reference, and failure to disclose that charges from a 2013 arrest were withdrawn), the unredacted ITO satisfied the Debot factors for credibility, reliability, and compelling nature of the confidential informant's information.

The court exercised its residual discretion and declined to quash the warrant, finding the prejudice did not rise to the level of abuse of process.

The section 8 application was dismissed.

The accused was charged with assault causing bodily harm after pushing the victim twice during an altercation in a shared residential home.

The accused admitted to using force but claimed self-defence.

The court found that while the first push may have been justified as self-defence, the second push was an act done in anger and not a reasonable act of self-defence.

The court determined that bodily harm was objectively foreseeable from the force used, and convicted the accused of assault causing bodily harm.

This is a bail hearing concerning 13 newly laid charges against the accused arising from allegations of serious abuse of two minor step-sons.

The charges include multiple counts of assault with weapons, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, threats to cause bodily harm, and assault causing bodily harm.

The accused had been released on bail two weeks prior by Justice Bovard on 26 related charges.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds under Section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that detention was justified on the tertiary ground to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, having regard to the serious nature of the charges, the apparent strength of the Crown's case, the vulnerability of the victims, and the pattern of protracted and cruel abuse alleged.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault of Daniel Shaver and assault with a weapon against Tim Brozeau following an incident on June 17, 2016.

The complainants attended the accused's residence to confront him about allegedly slashed tires on a vehicle.

After an initial heated discussion at the apartment door, the parties moved outside where the accused produced a machete.

The accused initially waved the machete at the unarmed complainants, then dropped it.

A struggle ensued over the weapon, during which Mr. Brozeau struck the accused with a shovel.

The accused subsequently chased the retreating complainants and struck Mr. Shaver with the machete while he was on the ground, causing a partial amputation of his hand.

The central issue was whether the accused's actions were justified as self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The accused was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and failure to comply with probation (2x) following an incident on August 9, 2018, in which the victim was slashed across the face with a knife outside a men's shelter.

The sole issue at trial was identity.

The Crown presented direct evidence from the victim, extensive video surveillance evidence, DNA evidence linking the accused to clothing found at the scene, DNA evidence of the victim on a knife found during the accused's arrest, and non-expert recognition evidence from police officers.

The defence conceded the accused was present at the scene but argued an alternative suspect may have committed the assault.

The court found the evidence overwhelming and convicted the accused on all counts.

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 defendants brought applications under section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to challenge the lawfulness of search warrants executed on three apartment units.

Thanh Nguyen lacked standing to challenge the search of the Sherway location as he had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a unit he was merely permitted to use as a guest.

Catherine Vu and Kevin Tran challenged the search of the Lakeshore location where Vu was the tenant.

The court found the warrant for the Lakeshore location was issued without reasonable grounds to believe evidence would be found there, as the connection between Tran and the residence was insufficient to establish more than occasional guest status.

The search violated section 8 rights.

However, under the R. v. Grant analysis, the evidence was admitted as the police acted in good faith, the state conduct was not improper, and society's interest in adjudication on the merits outweighed the privacy breach.

The applicant challenged the issuance of a DNA warrant on the grounds that the Information to Obtain contained inaccurate information regarding observations of the applicant engaging in drug trafficking activity and exiting a specific unit.

The court found that two aspects of the ITO should be excised as they were not supported by the original surveillance evidence.

However, the court determined that even with these excisions, there remained sufficient basis to authorize the seizure of the applicant's DNA based on other evidence, including CCTV footage showing the applicant using a fob associated with the unit, observations of the applicant leaving with a suspected drug trafficker, and possession of a key to the unit where a firearm was found.

The application was 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 impaired driving, driving with blood alcohol content exceeding the legal limit, assault, and marijuana possession arising from an incident on July 24, 2017.

The accused admitted to driving while impaired but raised the defence of necessity, claiming she fled a dangerous situation.

The court found that the accused was attacked by the complainant and subsequently threatened by others at the scene, and that she had no reasonable legal alternative but to drive away.

The court accepted the defence of necessity and acquitted the accused of the driving offences.

The court also found that the accused acted in self-defence against the complainant and acquitted her of the assault charge.

The accused was found guilty of possessing a small amount of marijuana but acquitted of possessing a larger quantity due to reasonable doubt.

The accused was charged with seven offences spanning approximately one year, including uttering threats to cause death, criminal harassment by watching and besetting, and attempted murder.

The Crown alleged the accused stabbed the complainant in the face with intent to kill.

The accused admitted to striking the complainant but disputed whether a knife was used and whether there was intent to kill.

The court found the Crown's evidence highly problematic, particularly regarding the mechanics of the assault.

An independent witness testified she observed a punch rather than a stab.

Medical evidence, photographs, and forensic analysis did not support the stabbing allegation.

The accused was acquitted of attempted murder, uttering threats, and criminal harassment, but convicted of assault with a weapon and aggravated assault based on admissions by defence counsel.