Court of Justice

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a motion for particulars brought by The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing) in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The Applicant sought particulars regarding the alleged offence under section 45(b) of Ontario Regulation 851, arguing that without such particulars they could not adequately prepare a due diligence defence.

The Court held that the charge as drafted, combined with disclosure, the Crown’s opening statement, and the Inspector’s investigative report, provided sufficient detail to ensure a fair trial.

The Court emphasized that particulars concerning the cause of the accident or the means by which the offence was committed are not required under the Provincial Offences Act and that the focus is on the employer’s failure to uphold prescribed safety measures, not on causation narrowly defined.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced Christopher Green to 2 years' imprisonment followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order after he pleaded guilty to multiple child pornography offences and breaches of court orders.

The Crown sought an 8-year sentence plus ancillary orders including lifetime prohibitions under ss. 109, 161, DNA, and SOIRA.

The defence argued for time served with enhanced pre-trial credit and opposed the long-term supervision order.

The court found that Green's repeated offending, despite prior sentences and supervision, demonstrated a substantial risk of reoffending, driven by an underlying sexual preference for adolescent males and substance abuse issues.

The court applied the principles from R v Friesen and R v Pike to impose a denunciatory sentence reflecting the gravity of the offences and the harm to victims.

Enhanced pre-trial custody credit was granted due to harsh detention conditions.

The long-term supervision order was imposed for the maximum 10 years to ensure structured supervision and risk management in the community.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether a judge who is not the trial judge or a case management judge appointed under s. 551.1 of the Criminal Code has jurisdiction to hear an application under s. 714.1 of the Criminal Code to permit the complainant in a sexual assault case to testify remotely by video from another province.

The court held that any judge having jurisdiction in the judicial district where the proceedings will take place may hear such an application, not only the trial or case management judge.

On the merits, the court denied the Crown’s application for remote testimony, finding that the witness’s inconvenience did not displace the presumption that testimony should be in person, especially given the seriousness of the charges and the witness’s ability to attend physically.

This decision involves a complex sentencing of K.T. for multiple sexual offences including criminal harassment, indecent communications, child pornography, luring, voyeurism, and exposure to persons under the age of 16.

The court carefully considered the offender’s mental health, intellectual functioning, and the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the deplorable pre-sentence custody conditions at the Ottawa Carleton Detention Centre.

The judge imposed consecutive sentences as mandated by the Criminal Code, balancing denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

This decision involves the sentencing of P.M. following convictions for counselling sexual touching, sexual assault, sexual interference, and making child pornography involving a single victim who was the daughter of P.M.'s partner.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's young age, abuse of trust, surreptitious video recording, and significant impact on the victim and her family.

Mitigating factors included family support, counselling efforts, and mental health issues.

The court imposed a total sentence of three years' custody, with credit for pre-sentence custody, and ancillary orders including DNA, SOIRA reporting, firearm prohibitions, and a 20-year order under s. 161 of the Criminal Code restricting contact with minors and certain locations.

Jian Chen was charged with trafficking one kilogram of ketamine.

The case involved a complex police investigation where Chen was not the initial target but was observed transferring ketamine to the target of the investigation.

Chen challenged the admissibility of evidence on the basis of breaches of his Charter rights under sections 10(a) and 10(b), specifically delays and failures in providing timely and effective rights to counsel due to language barriers and police procedural shortcomings.

The court found breaches of these rights but declined to exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, considering the police acted in good faith and the breaches were contextually minor.

The court convicted Chen of trafficking, emphasizing the importance of reasonable police diligence in facilitating access to counsel of choice, especially in multilingual contexts.

This decision addresses the application of s. 530 of the Criminal Code regarding an accused's right to a trial in the official language of their choice.

The court held that the Crown met its burden to show that Kevin Nguyen could not have his trial in French due to insufficient proficiency to follow proceedings or instruct counsel in French.

The ruling emphasizes that the right to a French trial requires actual ability to participate meaningfully in that language, not merely a preference or cultural identity.

The decision also clarifies that administrative convenience is irrelevant and that the right to a fair trial may be compromised if the accused cannot follow the proceedings in the chosen language.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether breath samples obtained following a demand made with a non-operational Approved Screening Device (ASD) should be excluded under section 24(2) of the Charter.

The court found that the initial detention was lawful but became arbitrary when the officer continued detention solely to administer the ASD while lacking mouthpieces, rendering the demand invalid.

Subsequent arrest and breath samples were consequential Charter breaches.

The court held the breach was minor and inadvertent, mitigated by the accused’s opportunity to consult counsel, and that admitting the evidence would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The accused’s application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and he was found guilty.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced S.T. to 8 months imprisonment for sexual assault of his spouse, with additional consecutive and concurrent sentences totaling 30 days for breaches of court orders.

The court considered aggravating factors including the violation of a position of trust, persistence despite victim resistance, and the significant psychological impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included S.T.'s lack of prior record, remorse for breaches, employment history, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to concerns about compliance and the seriousness of the offence.

A 10-year SOIRA order, DNA order, and a 10-year weapons prohibition were also imposed.

This decision addresses a contact order application by maternal grandparents seeking increased contact with their 6-year-old granddaughter.

The court carefully analyzes the best interests of the child under the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the existing relationships, parental positions, and the child’s needs.

The court declines to defer to the parents’ wishes due to arbitrary and detrimental conduct by the mother in limiting contact.

It orders contact on one out of every three weekends plus extended holiday contact, balancing the child’s relationships with both sets of grandparents and parents, and emphasizing stability and quality of time over quantity.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether the possession of fentanyl by Kevin Coulter was for the purpose of trafficking under s. 5(2) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two offences but contested the trafficking charge.

The court analyzed expert evidence, including discrepancies in the expert report and the defendant’s testimony about drug use and financial status.

The court found the quantity, packaging, and variety of drugs, along with possession of brass knuckles, supported the inference of trafficking.

The defendant’s inconsistent testimony and the circumstantial evidence led to a conviction for possession for the purpose of trafficking.

This decision addresses a father's motion for parenting time after allegations of sexual abuse by the mother led to a cessation of contact with their 2½-year-old child.

The court carefully analyzed the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, considering the limited and unverified evidence of abuse, the history of the parental relationship, and the impact of family violence allegations by both parties.

The court found no concrete evidence supporting the sexual abuse allegations and emphasized the importance of supervised parenting time rather than a complete denial.

The decision orders supervised parenting time with a gradual increase to be managed by the Superior Court of Justice, highlighting the need for a balanced approach in high-conflict family law cases involving serious allegations.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Raymond Vitellaro guilty of impaired operation of a conveyance, dangerous operation, and refusing to provide a bodily sample following a multi-vehicle collision caused by his driving.

The court carefully analyzed the right to counsel issues, concluding no breach occurred despite delays in contacting his counsel of choice.

The evidence, including dashcam footage and credible witness testimony, established that Vitellaro drove dangerously at high speed, distracted by opening a bag of Cheetos, and was impaired by narcotic analgesics (suboxone).

His refusal to provide a bodily sample was not excused by his explanations and was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court also dismissed a Charter s 11(b) application for delay, attributing most delay to the defence.