Court of Justice

The accused, A.V., brought a Charter application challenging the constitutionality of section 7(4.1) of the Criminal Code, arguing it was overbroad and infringed his liberty interests under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The provision grants extraterritorial jurisdiction over Canadian citizens and permanent residents for certain child sexual exploitation offences committed abroad.

The court examined the legislative objective of section 7(4.1) and assessed whether reasonable hypotheticals, such as consensual sexual activity with a 15-year-old in France (where the age of consent is 15), fell outside the objective.

The court found the objective was broad: to deter Canadian nationals from engaging in conduct viewed by Canadian standards as sexually exploitative of children abroad, regardless of dual criminality or international comity.

The court concluded that the hypotheticals, while potentially leading to "ill-advised prosecutions," were technically connected to this broad objective and therefore dismissed the overbreadth challenge.

During a criminal trial for an Over 80 charge, the Crown sought to admit an utterance made by the accused.

The court conducted a blended trial/voluntariness/Charter application.

Justice Latimer ruled that the Crown failed to prove the utterance voluntary beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to a deficient and largely inaudible audio recording of the interaction between the police officer and the accused in the breath room.

The court emphasized the Crown's burden to establish a sufficient record for voluntariness.

As a result of this ruling, the Crown advised they could not otherwise prove the charge, leading to its dismissal.

This decision concerns Heather Vukovic, charged with Careless Driving Causing Death under the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from a collision where Vukovic's vehicle, travelling westbound on Highway 9, collided with another vehicle turning left into oncoming traffic, resulting in the other driver's death.

While the defendant was found to be speeding, the court considered witness testimony and accident reconstruction evidence, which indicated the victim's vehicle caused the collision by turning into oncoming traffic.

The court applied the legal standard for careless driving, emphasizing that it does not require perfection and that speed alone is insufficient.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's driving constituted careless driving causing death, finding her not guilty.

The applicant wife and respondent husband separated after 18 years of cohabitation and marriage, entering into a separation agreement in 2015 that provided for spousal support of $10,000 per month.

The husband ceased payments in April 2019 and brought a motion to vary or terminate spousal support, citing voluntary retirement due to perceived health issues and changes in medical practice.

The wife opposed the motion, asserting her continued entitlement to support.

The court dismissed the husband's motion, finding that his voluntary retirement was not a material change in circumstances warranting a variation, and that he retained the capacity to work.

The court ordered spousal support to continue as per the original separation agreement.

The Regional Municipality of York appealed the dismissal of a speeding charge against the respondent, which was originally dismissed by a Justice of the Peace who found the certified statement evidence insufficient due to "unanswered questions" regarding the speed measurement device.

The appeal court found that the Justice of the Peace erred by relying on speculation rather than inferences reasonably arising from the evidence.

As the certified statements were deemed proof of facts in the absence of evidence to the contrary under the Provincial Offences Act, and no such contrary evidence was presented, the appeal was allowed.

The appellant, Igor Iagolnik, appealed a speeding conviction under the Highway Traffic Act, arguing the Justice of the Peace erred by refusing an adjournment when the prosecution used certified statements and that the evidence was insufficient.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that certified statements under s. 48.1 of the Provincial Offences Act are admissible and sufficient proof in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

The court also clarified that pre-conditions for speed measurement evidence admissibility are no longer required for established technologies like RADAR/LIDAR, and speculation does not constitute evidence to the contrary.

The accused, R.G., was charged with sexual assault with a weapon and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose against his spouse.

The trial judge found the complainant's evidence to be credible despite defence arguments regarding her memory issues stemming from a traumatic brain injury.

The defence's attempt to establish a motive to fabricate on the complainant's part, involving an alleged paramour, was rejected as contrived and self-serving.

The court found the accused guilty on both counts, emphasizing that the Crown's evidence was clear, powerful, and compelling.

A pre-sentence report was ordered, and uncharged sexual assault allegations were noted as potential aggravating factors for sentencing.

The Crown brought a motion for a mental health assessment of the accused, who had pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm.

The assessment was sought under sections 672.11(b) and 672.12(3)(b) of the Criminal Code to determine if the accused was exempt from criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder under section 16(1).

The accused opposed the application, arguing his psychotic episodes were drug-induced.

The court, reviewing a psychiatric assessment, found reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility on account of a mental disorder, noting that a diagnosis of "Psychosis Not Otherwise Specified" suggested a potential underlying mental health issue beyond drug-induced psychosis.

The court granted the Crown's application, ordering the assessment.

The accused, Islamunddin Attayee, was charged with assaulting his spouse and an intervening member of the public.

The primary issue at trial was the identity of the assailant, as the spouse was uncooperative.

The court found the in-dock identification by witnesses insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt, citing the need for caution as per R. v. Hibbert.

Additionally, the court noted disturbing surreptitious communications between a testifying police officer and the officer in charge during the Zoom trial, which undermined the fairness of the process and led to the accused being left without counsel.

The Crown's inaction in investigating these communications was criticized, emphasizing the Crown's heightened duty of fairness and disclosure as per R. v. Ahluwalia.

The accused was acquitted of all charges.

The applicant mother sought to lift a stay on her Motion to Change parenting and support terms, and to amend her motion to seek primary residence of the child.

The respondent father opposed lifting the stay and sought security for costs, or alternatively, pre-conditions including payment of outstanding costs and child support, and financial disclosure.

The court dismissed the father's request for security for costs, finding the mother's claim not to be a nuisance or waste of time, especially given the child's best interests.

However, the court imposed strict pre-conditions for lifting the stay, requiring the mother to provide comprehensive financial disclosure and pay outstanding costs and child support arrears within 120 days, citing her history of non-compliance and lack of financial transparency.

The court emphasized balancing the child's right to be heard with fairness to the father.

Sentencing decision for offences involving making, transmitting, and possessing child pornography.

The accused, a teacher’s assistant, secretly photographed a vulnerable young student while assisting him in a washroom and distributed the image online while engaging in sexually explicit conversations about abusing children.

Police also discovered a large collection of child pornography and additional images of students taken without their knowledge.

The court emphasized denunciation and deterrence for child exploitation offences, highlighting the breach of trust and vulnerability of the victims as serious aggravating factors.

Despite mitigating factors including a guilty plea, rehabilitation efforts, and psychological treatment, the offender’s moral culpability was found to be high.

A global custodial sentence of four years was imposed, reduced by seven months for strict house arrest bail conditions.

During a sentencing hearing for sexual assault, the defence objected to the admissibility of a Victim Impact Statement because it was not in the prescribed statutory form (Form 34.2) and argued that its first four paragraphs were irrelevant.

The court noted that s. 722(4) of the Criminal Code requires the statutory form, but admitted the statement on consent after the Crown offered to resubmit it properly.

The court also ruled that the first four paragraphs were admissible to provide context to the victim's circumstances, noting it would disregard any irrelevant portions pursuant to s. 722(8).

The accused was convicted of sexually assaulting his estranged wife while intoxicated.

The assault occurred over a 60-90 minute period while the victim was in bed with their child.

The Crown sought a 12-month jail sentence, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence and breach of trust, alongside mitigating factors including the accused's lack of a criminal record, compliance with release conditions, and the victim's request that he not be jailed.

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence followed by 12 months of probation.

This is a ruling on a challenge to the mandatory minimum sentence provisions of the Criminal Code for a drinking and driving offence.

The applicant, Ali Haider Cheema, was found guilty of having care or control of a motor vehicle with excess alcohol and challenged the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentence (conviction and $1500 fine) under s.12 of the Charter, arguing it constituted cruel and unusual punishment due to the risk of removal from Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).

The court found that a conditional discharge was not a fit sentence for the offence, considering the gravity of drinking and driving offences and the public interest in deterrence and denunciation, even with the sympathetic personal circumstances and serious immigration consequences.

The application was dismissed, and the mandatory minimum sentence was imposed.

The accused and the complainant engaged in a consensual physical fight at a car wash over a perceived line-cutting incident.

During the altercation, the complainant grabbed and pulled out two of the accused's dreadlocks.

In response, the accused used a key on his keyring to strike the complainant, causing a puncture wound.

The accused was charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, and possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose.

The court found that the consensual fight ended when the complainant pulled the accused's hair, causing bodily harm, and that the accused's use of the key was a reasonable and proportionate response in self-defence.

The Crown failed to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

The accused, Heath Johnston, pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, and possession of proceeds of crime, following his arrest with significant quantities of drugs and cash.

A Gladue Report and Pre-Sentence Report were prepared, highlighting his Indigenous background, intergenerational trauma, and personal struggles with addiction exacerbated by pandemic-related job loss.

The Crown sought a 6-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed 3.5 years.

The court applied Gladue principles, emphasizing the remedial purpose of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in custody.

Despite the seriousness of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the court found that a restorative approach through a conditional sentence was appropriate given the strong Gladue factors and the accused's rehabilitation efforts.