Court of Justice

The Ontario Court of Justice granted Janet Jansen's amended motion to retroactively increase child support payments from David DiCecco, her former partner, starting August 1, 2003.

The court found that DiCecco had engaged in egregious blameworthy conduct by deliberately misrepresenting his income and assets over many years, failing to provide meaningful financial disclosure, and intimidating the mother to delay litigation.

The court imputed income to the father based on increases in his net worth and business growth, significantly exceeding the income he reported to the CRA.

The retroactive support arrears were calculated at $899,811, payable forthwith, with the court rejecting the father's attempts to limit his obligations or reduce support based on the child's age or his income exceeding $150,000.

The decision underscores the court's commitment to ensuring child support obligations reflect actual income and punishes financial deception.

This decision addresses a motion for directions brought by the City of Toronto concerning approximately 250 outstanding appeals under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) initiated by notices of appeal following guilty pleas entered by paralegal representatives.

The Court identified a troubling pattern where appeals were filed but not actively pursued, often by a non-licensed individual, Kiril Kovuntunko, and a licensed paralegal, Adelin B. Mocanu, operating through Ticket Justice.

The Court ordered that all such appeals be perfected by April 9, 2025, with transcripts filed and service completed, and set a hearing date for May 26-27, 2025.

The judgment highlights procedural safeguards, the statutory framework for Part I POA appeals, and the importance of ensuring appeals are not used to delay justice.

This decision addresses a motion concerning contact between paternal grandparents and their grandchild, Asher Krauter-Maki, in the context of a complex family situation involving a Voluntary Service Agreement (VSA), child protection concerns, and supervised parenting time.

The court considered the best interests of the child under section 24 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, the history of supervised parenting time, and the involvement of child protection agencies.

The court restored the status quo on a temporary basis, granting the paternal grandparents weekend contact with the child, with supervised presence of the father, and set directions for future proceedings including costs and further evidence.

This decision addresses the issue of whether a police officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused, Silvia Taboada, for impaired driving by drug, following a motor vehicle collision.

The officer, PC Zold, relied on observations including the accused's behavior, physical signs, and information from dispatch, despite not smelling alcohol and lacking training in standard field sobriety tests.

The court found that the officer had both subjective and objective reasonable grounds to arrest and demand breath samples, dismissing the accused's Charter application.

The decision also includes a detailed section 24(2) analysis, ultimately admitting the breath test evidence as reliable and critical to the Crown's case.

This decision involves the conviction of Joseph Herrington for assaulting his intimate partner, Janice Wu, contrary to section 266 of the Criminal Code.

The court carefully analyzed the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the complainant, a neighbour, and the accused himself.

Applying the W.(D.) framework, the judge found the complainant’s evidence credible and reliable despite minor inconsistencies, supported by the neighbour’s independent testimony.

The accused’s evidence was found implausible and inconsistent.

The court rejected the defence’s de minimis argument, emphasizing the seriousness of intimate partner violence.

The accused was found guilty based on the totality of the evidence proving the assault beyond a reasonable doubt.

This sentencing decision addresses serious domestic violence offences committed by K.B., who pleaded guilty to multiple counts including assault, assault with choking, threatening to damage property, threatening death, and theft.

The offender has a significant prior record for domestic violence offences in Alberta, including sexual assault and assault with a weapon, and had been paroled for over five years before reoffending.

The court carefully balanced aggravating factors such as the severity and multiplicity of offences and prior record, with mitigating factors including guilty pleas, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, remorse, and community support.

The total sentence imposed was 30 months imprisonment, with credit for 337 days pre-sentence custody and Summers credit, followed by a three-year probation order with strict conditions including no contact with the victim and mandatory counselling.

This decision addresses the issue of reasonable and probable grounds (RPG) for arrest and demand in a drug-impaired driving case.

The court found that Officer Accursi had both subjective and objectively reasonable grounds to arrest Dalton Powell based on observations corroborated by a civilian witness and body camera footage.

The accused's Charter s. 8 and s. 9 rights were found not to be violated, including an overholding claim where the accused was detained for approximately six hours after the initial arrest.

The court also found the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on officer observations, Drug Recognition Expert (DRE) testing, and urinalysis results.

This decision addresses the application of s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of workplace inspections under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The applicant, The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing), challenged the Ministry of Labour inspector's warrantless collection of evidence following a workplace injury, alleging an unreasonable search and seizure.

The Court applied the two-step s. 8 analysis, focusing on whether a search or seizure occurred and if it was reasonable, and considered the "predominant purpose" test from R. v. Jarvis to determine if the inspector had crossed from regulatory inspection into penal investigation requiring a warrant.

The Court found that although Konstant had a reasonable expectation of privacy, the inspector's actions were authorized under s. 54 of the OHSA as part of a regulatory inspection, and no s. 8 breach occurred.

The application for exclusion of evidence and costs was dismissed.

Martin Moore pleaded guilty to multiple offences including attempted disarming of a peace officer, break and enter, fraud under $5000, and assaulting a peace officer.

The court rejected a joint sentencing submission of 120 days custody, finding it unhinged from the circumstances and offender's conduct.

The judge emphasized that an attempt to disarm a peace officer is as serious as a successful disarmament under s. 270.1 of the Criminal Code, and that the offender's failure to succeed is not mitigating.

The court imposed a global sentence of 300 days custody with enhanced presentence credit, probation, and ancillary orders, highlighting numerous aggravating factors including breach of recognizance, false identification, and violent conduct.

This decision addresses the issue of costs following a focused trial on child support between Tiffany Maggio and Robert Sousa.

The court confirmed the child support amounts and arrears, and considered the parties' written offers to settle under the amended Family Law Rules.

The court found the father's conduct unreasonable and bordering on bad faith due to incomplete financial disclosure and misrepresentations, while the mother acted reasonably except for a late offer to settle.

The court awarded costs to the mother in the amount of $12,000 plus HST, emphasizing the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, and the importance of compliance with procedural rules.

This decision addresses the interpretation of section 527 of the Criminal Code concerning the conveyance of prisoners to court when they refuse to attend.

The court held that a s. 527 order compels the custodian to deliver the prisoner to court and that the use of necessary force to do so is authorized under s. 25(1) of the Criminal Code without requiring explicit language in the order.

The court emphasized that prisoners do not have a choice to refuse attendance and that correctional staff must be aware of their legal authority to use reasonable force.

The decision clarifies the interplay between s. 527 and s. 25, rejecting the need for “extraction orders” with specific force authorization clauses.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Eric Oliha guilty of robbery, forcible confinement, sexual assault, and breach of probation based on evidence that he forcibly confined a woman in a McDonald's women's washroom stall, exerting control over her movements and exploiting her vulnerability.

The court emphasized that sexual assault can be established without explicit threats or physical contact if the accused's conduct creates an apprehension of imminent harm or offensive contact that affronts sexual integrity.

The accused's control and confinement of the complainant, combined with his demands and the victim's fear, satisfied the elements of sexual assault and forcible confinement.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as entirely unreliable.

This decision addresses an application under section 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for a witness to testify behind a screen in an assault case involving intimate partner violence.

The court considered the statutory factors and relevant case law, including the lowered threshold for granting such orders.

The complainant expressed emotional distress and discomfort at testifying in the presence of the accused, which the court found sufficient to grant the application.

The ruling emphasizes the importance of facilitating truthful testimony without compromising the accused’s right to a fair trial.

This decision involves a sexual assault trial where the accused, Dru Norris, was charged with multiple counts including sexual assault and breaches of release conditions.

The court applied the framework from R. v. D.W. to assess the credibility and reliability of the complainant L.T. and the accused.

The judge found the accused's evidence inconsistent, illogical, and evasive, while accepting the complainant's testimony as credible and reliable.

The accused was found guilty of sexual assault and the breaches of release conditions.

This decision addresses the issue of consent in a sexual assault trial involving the accused, Stelios Stratigakos, and the complainant, H.K. The court carefully evaluates the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, including the complainant, a close friend, and the accused.

The judge applies the legal standard from R. v. W.D. regarding reasonable doubt and finds the accused's testimony not credible.

The complainant's testimony, corroborated by an independent witness, is accepted as truthful.

The accused is found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of sexual assault.

This decision addresses the credibility and reliability assessments in a sexual assault trial involving three counts against Jun-Feng Zhang.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence, including witness testimony and digital communications, applying the W.(D.) framework for reasonable doubt.

Despite inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence, the judge found the accused's testimony detailed and credible, ultimately acquitting Zhang on all counts due to reasonable doubt.