Court of Justice

This decision addresses the Crown's application for abridgement of time for service and filing of its Form 2 response to a defence Charter Application under the Criminal Proceedings Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice.

The Court emphasizes the fundamental importance of fairness and adherence to procedural rules but recognizes that inadvertent non-compliance, when explained and without bad faith, does not necessarily warrant prohibiting the Crown from responding.

The Court grants the Crown's application, allowing the late response, and highlights the discretion courts have to ensure just and efficient proceedings.

This decision addresses the constitutional validity of a search warrant issued based on information from a confidential source (C.S.) and corroborated by police investigation.

The court analyzed the sufficiency of the Information to Obtain (ITO) under the test established in R. v. Debot, focusing on the credibility, compelling nature, and corroboration of the C.S.'s information.

The judge rejected the accused's argument that exclusion of evidence from a prior unlawful search undermined the warrant's validity.

The court found the warrant was reasonably granted, emphasizing the detailed, recent, and corroborated information provided by the C.S. and police, and upheld the admission of evidence obtained.

This decision addresses multiple alleged Charter breaches related to the arrest and detention of Rajiv Quinless for impaired driving with excess blood alcohol concentration.

The Court found no breaches regarding the reliance on the Approved Screening Device (ASD) results or the adequacy of the information provided about the reasons for arrest.

There was no breach found in the timing of the right to counsel being read.

However, the Court found serious breaches of the right to counsel under s.10(b) of the Charter, including impermissible steering to duty counsel instead of allowing the accused to contact his brother for legal assistance, and a breach of the right to consult with counsel in private due to the accused’s reasonable belief that the consultation was not private.

The evidence (breath readings and utterances) was excluded under s.24(2) to maintain confidence in the administration of justice, resulting in a dismissal of the charge.

The accused, Jessica Werpny, was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle and operating with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over 80 mg per 100 ml of blood.

The key issues were whether the Crown could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was operating the vehicle and whether the accused could rely on the statutory exception under section 320.14(5) of the Criminal Code, which applies if alcohol was consumed after ceasing to operate the vehicle.

The court found that the accused remained in care and control of the vehicle and did not cease operating it, despite being stuck and consuming alcohol while seated in the driver's seat.

The presumption under section 320.35 applied and was not rebutted.

The accused was found guilty of the over 80 offence but not guilty of impaired operation, as the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a motion to quash a Part I certificate of offence charging Muhammad Butt with failing to stop at a red light contrary to section 144(18) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defence argued the certificate was defective for not including the informant’s name, relying on case law to support quashing the certificate.

The Court held that minor defects, such as the absence of the informant’s name but presence of an officer identifier ("PC 10429") and signature, do not justify quashing under the Provincial Offences Act.

The Court emphasized the broad discretion to amend certificates to ensure cases are decided on their merits rather than technicalities, citing binding precedent including R. v. Massicotte and York v. Winlow.

The motion to quash was dismissed.

This decision addresses the admissibility of evidence of other sexual activity under section 276 of the Criminal Code in a sexual assault prosecution.

The court allowed evidence that the complainant propositioned the Applicant and his girlfriend, C.E., for a threesome, finding it relevant to impeach the complainant’s credibility and establish a motive to fabricate.

The court further permitted limited questioning about the complainant’s sexual interest in C.E., concluding that this evidence had significant probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice, particularly in a judge-alone trial.

The ruling clarifies the scope of permissible cross-examination regarding sexual interest as it relates to motive to fabricate allegations.

The appellant, Peter Dimakos, appealed the dismissal of his s.11(b) Charter application related to allegations under the Building Code Act.

The Ontario Court of Justice upheld the trial justice’s decision that the application was not properly before the court due to failure to properly serve the Attorney General, emphasizing the mandatory nature of proper service.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial justice’s procedural ruling and declined to order a new trial under s.120(1) of the Provincial Offences Act despite acknowledging alternative procedural approaches.

This sentencing decision addresses the conviction of Cengiz Ay for impaired operation of a motor vehicle and refusal to provide a breath sample.

The court considered aggravating factors including dangerous driving towards a residential home, structural damage, evacuation due to gas smell, and high intoxication.

Mitigating factors included the isolated nature of the incident, no prior record, and family support.

The judge imposed a global conditional sentence of 90 days (60 days for impaired operation and 30 days consecutive for refusal), house arrest with specific exceptions, a 24-month probation period with conditions including ignition interlock and counselling, and a 27-month driving prohibition.

The decision balances public safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

This decision addresses a motion to change parenting and support orders concerning an 11-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances, including significant parental conflict and family violence, warranting a change from joint custody to sole decision-making and primary residence with the mother.

The father’s conduct, including withholding the child, social media harassment, and failure to comply with court orders, was found harmful to the child.

The court ordered supervised parenting time for the father, restricted his social media activity, and granted police enforcement of parenting orders.

Child support arrears were calculated with income imputed to the father due to non-disclosure.

This decision addresses the issue of credibility and reliability in a sexual assault trial where the accused, Benedict Okolie, was charged with sexual assault against Ms. A.A. The court carefully analyzed the conflicting testimonies of the complainant and the accused, emphasizing the high burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence.

The judge found significant inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence, particularly regarding her level of intoxication and behavior during the incident, which could not be reconciled with the video evidence.

The accused’s testimony was largely consistent, though some parts were rejected.

Ultimately, the court was unable to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.

This sentencing decision concerns Sgt. Alex Esliger of the Canadian Armed Forces, convicted of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code for an incident occurring during deployment in Iraq.

The court carefully considered the facts, including the nature of the assault involving forced digital penetration and attempted intercourse, the victim impact, and the offender’s background including mental and physical health issues.

The judge emphasized principles of denunciation and deterrence, referencing key Supreme Court and Court of Appeal authorities, and rejected a conditional sentence despite defence submissions.

The sentence imposed was three years’ imprisonment, a 20-year SOIRA order, and a 10-year firearms prohibition, reflecting the serious nature of the offence and its impact within a military context.

This sentencing decision addresses the appropriate custodial sentence for Baskaran Balasooriyan, convicted of possession of stolen property over $5000, attempted abduction of a 12-year-old child, mischief, criminal harassment, and breach of release order.

The court considered the applicability of the Kienapple principle to stay counts, the availability of a s. 161 order to protect children, and the appropriateness of a conditional sentence order.

The judge rejected the defence's proposed conditional sentence and stay of mischief, emphasizing the high moral culpability, risk to the community, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The sentence imposed included 420 days custody for attempted abduction (fully credited for presentence custody), 60 days for possession, and a suspended sentence for breach, followed by probation, DNA, s. 161, and s. 109 orders.

The Ontario Court of Justice sentenced J.S. for assault and sexual assault of his 14-year-old step-sister, JM.

The court considered the offender's extensive criminal record, Indigenous background, and the Gladue report, balancing aggravating factors such as abuse of trust and the nature of the sexual offence with mitigating factors including the offender's willingness to engage in treatment and community support.

The court imposed a two-year less one day conditional sentence with 12 months of house arrest and electronic monitoring, concurrent probation, and various ancillary orders, emphasizing rehabilitation and long-term supervision over incarceration.

This decision addresses multiple Charter breaches arising from the detention, search, and arrest of Omar Yaqubi in Toronto's Entertainment District.

The court found breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter, including arbitrary detention without reasonable suspicion, unlawful search without safety justification, and failure to promptly inform and facilitate the right to counsel.

The court excluded the evidence obtained during the unlawful detention and search pursuant to section 24(2) of the Charter.

Alternatively, a stay of proceedings was directed due to the loss of critical evidence caused by police muting body-worn cameras and failure to preserve key witness information, impairing the accused's right to make full answer and defence.

This decision addresses complex parenting and child support issues between Steven Thomas Skiffington and Christine Lucy Parsons (now MacDougall) concerning their three children.

The court incorporated the parties' agreement on decision-making and regular parenting time, then resolved outstanding disputes on summer parenting schedules, travel arrangements, transportation responsibilities, and potential parenting time changes upon relocation.

The court also determined retroactive child support obligations, including imputation of income due to unreported cash earnings, and apportioned section 7 expenses.

The judgment emphasizes the best interests of the children, the impact of family violence, and the necessity of clear, structured parenting terms.

It provides detailed guidance on travel consent, transportation sharing, and arrears repayment, balancing fairness and the parties' financial realities.