Court of Justice

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed Nathaniel McCausland's application for a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process due to the Crown's alleged reneging on a plea agreement.

The court found no evidence of a formal plea agreement, only vague discussions initiated by a bail Crown attorney without proper authorization or detailed terms.

The burden of proving an abuse of process was not met, as there was no misconduct or bad faith by the Crown.

The decision clarifies the distinction between plea discussions and binding plea agreements, emphasizing the necessity of clear, authorized, and detailed terms for a plea agreement to be enforceable.

This decision addresses whether a Crown witness, Constable Emmanuelle Boucher, may testify remotely via videoconference at trial under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code.

The accused, Ashley Russell, faces a charge of operating a conveyance while prohibited.

The Court balanced factors including the witness's location, costs, the nature of the offence, and the accused’s right to a fair trial.

The Court found that the presumption of in-person testimony was overcome, permitting remote testimony by Zoom with conditions to ensure fairness and integrity of the evidence.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion to strike pleadings based on a respondent father's breach of a prior final order regarding child support payments and income disclosure.

The court found the father had breached the order but declined to strike his pleadings, instead ordering disclosure within 90 days and precluding relief related to child support until compliance.

Both parties sought costs, but the court found success was divided and both parties engaged in unreasonable conduct.

Applying Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules and relevant case law, the court denied costs to both parties, emphasizing shared responsibility for the unnecessary motion.

This decision addresses the issue of costs in family law motions concerning parenting, child support, and relocation.

The court analyzed the application of subrule 24(12) regarding costs consequences of failure to accept a settlement offer, finding that the mother’s offer was as good as or better than the court’s order on key issues such as primary residence, decision-making responsibility, and supervised parenting time.

The father was ordered to pay costs, but the amount was reduced due to his success on the relocation issue.

The court emphasized the importance of reasonableness, proportionality, and the parties’ conduct in awarding costs, noting both parties acted unreasonably and neither was a credible witness.

The decision also highlights the necessity of a bill of costs for proper assessment and the court’s discretion in setting payment plans.

This decision involves the sentencing and long-term supervision order (LTSO) application for Gregory Lock, a repeat offender with a decades-long history of sexual offences against children, including possession and accessing of child pornography.

Despite a prior 10-year LTSO imposed in 2012, Mr. Lock repeatedly breached the order by possessing prohibited materials and devices, culminating in new convictions.

The Court imposed a new 10-year LTSO and a total effective sentence of 12 years imprisonment, with credit for pre-trial custody reducing the penitentiary term to 5.5 years.

The ruling emphasizes the serious nature of child pornography offences, the offender’s high risk of recidivism, and the necessity of denunciatory and deterrent sentences to protect the public, especially children.

Ancillary orders including DNA, weapons prohibition, SOIRA registration, and section 161 prohibitions were also imposed.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a two-day family law trial concerning parenting time.

The respondent sought to extend midweek overnight parenting time but was unsuccessful.

The court considered the parties' conduct, offers to settle, and the proportionality of costs.

The applicant was awarded partial indemnity costs of $4,500, reflecting her success on the primary issue and the reasonableness of the parties' positions.

The decision highlights the application of Family Law Rules subrules 24(12), 24(13), and 24(14) in assessing costs, emphasizing the importance of offers to settle and the conduct of parties in family litigation.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Biplove Kumar guilty of impaired operation and excess blood alcohol operation following a collision with an ambulance.

The court addressed multiple Charter challenges raised by Kumar, including alleged violations of sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter concerning unreasonable seizure, unlawful arrest, and rights to counsel.

The court found Kumar was not detained in the ambulance prior to arrest, that police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breath demand, and that the police acted with reasonable diligence in facilitating access to counsel.

The court also rejected claims of excessive force and found Kumar’s testimony lacked credibility, relying heavily on body-worn camera footage and witness testimony.

This decision clarifies the interpretation of "at trial" under section 25(4) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), holding that a young person is considered "at trial" from the moment they decide to contest charges, including during the pre-trial or case management phase, without requiring formal arraignment or plea.

The court emphasized the broad statutory right to counsel throughout all stages of proceedings, consistent with Parliament’s intent and international law commitments such as the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The decision also recommends procedural reforms to allow YCJA section 25(4) applications to be submitted electronically and decided without formal hearings when uncontested, to conserve judicial resources and reduce burdens on vulnerable youth.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Dylan Victor McCormack-Woolacoot after he pled guilty to ten charges involving repeated low-level offences and assaults over an eighteen-month period, committed while breaching multiple court orders.

The key issue was the appropriate credit for pre-sentence custody, with the defence seeking enhanced Summers credit (1.5:1) and the Crown opposing based on a recent trial decision denying such credit due to reoffending while on bail.

The court rejected the Crown’s reliance on R. v. Jeyakanthan, finding it unpersuasive and inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent, and awarded 1.5:1 credit for all pre-sentence custody.

The global sentence imposed was 460 days, reflecting aggravating and mitigating factors, with probation and ancillary orders.

This decision concerns the sentencing of Kelvin Atta for two acts of forced sexual intercourse committed in an adult high school.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim’s age and the serious violation of her physical and sexual integrity, as well as mitigating factors such as the offender’s youth, newcomer status, lack of prior record, and cognitive impairments.

The Crown sought the maximum 18-month sentence available on summary conviction, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The judge imposed a 16-month custodial sentence followed by probation, rejecting a conditional sentence due to the gravity of the offence and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The decision carefully analyzes recent case law developments on conditional sentences for sexual assault and emphasizes proportionality and the evolving understanding of sexual assault as a serious act of violence.

This decision addresses a temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children’s Aid Society of Toronto sought to place the child, E.G., in the temporary care of the father, V.G., with supervised access for the mother, O.G. The court found that the mother’s significant mental health challenges, including erratic behavior and refusal of treatment, posed a risk of harm to the child.

The mother’s social media postings identifying the child and participants in the case were found to violate subsection 87(8) of the Act, leading to a prohibition on such postings and an order for their removal.

The court emphasized the child’s best interests, the need for stability, and the importance of protecting the integrity of child protection proceedings from cyberbullying and intimidation.

The Ontario Court of Justice convicted Todd Snow of sexual assault, failure to comply with probation, and failure to comply with a peace bond.

The complainant alleged non-consensual vaginal intercourse, while the defendant claimed consensual oral sex.

DNA evidence linked the defendant to the complainant’s external genitalia and vaginal swabs, strongly supporting the Crown’s case.

The defendant’s prior statement denying any sexual contact was found to be fabricated to conceal guilt.

The court accepted the complainant’s testimony as credible despite her prior convictions and challenges related to fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

The decision highlights the importance of DNA evidence and the legal distinction between disbelief and fabrication of exculpatory statements.

This sentencing decision addresses possession of fentanyl and methamphetamine for the purpose of trafficking, involving significant quantities of highly dangerous drugs.

The offender, Abdalaazim Malik Harun, pleaded guilty after trial commenced.

The Court emphasized denunciation and deterrence given the societal harms of fentanyl and methamphetamine trafficking, while also considering the offender’s stable family support and lack of addiction.

The sentence imposed was 6.5 years on the fentanyl count and 5 years concurrent on the methamphetamine count, with enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Court declined to grant additional Duncan credit for harsh pre-sentence conditions absent evidence but allowed some mitigation for strict bail conditions (Downes credit).

Ancillary orders included DNA sampling and weapons prohibitions.

The Ontario Court of Justice acquitted Islam Elmajbri of two counts of sexual assault involving a patient, MC, in the emergency department of Toronto Western Hospital.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant, particularly due to his alcohol dependency and inconsistent testimony.

The judge accepted Elmajbri’s evidence that the touching was incidental and part of routine cleaning services provided by personal service workers (PSWs) in the ED, and that MC consented to being cleaned.

The court also ruled that the two incidents could be treated as a single transaction and admitted evidence of the second incident as similar fact evidence.

Ultimately, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Elmajbri’s conduct was sexual in nature or that consent was vitiated by his position.