Court of Justice

The applicant sought a remedy for alleged violations of her Charter rights, arguing that search warrants for her vehicle and home should be invalidated because they were based partly on information obtained through searches that violated her co-accused's Charter rights.

The applicant alternatively argued she had her own reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone and phone number that were the subject of the impugned searches.

The court ruled on the standing issue only, finding that the applicant lacked standing to attack the underlying warrants.

The applicant could not assert her co-accused's Charter rights, and she failed to establish her own reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell phone data.

A young person (DP), age 15 at the time of the alleged offence, was charged with sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code for allegedly penetrating the complainant (ML) anally while she slept during a birthday sleepover.

The Crown proceeded by indictment.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant, two witnesses present at the sleepover, and the accused.

The court found the accused not guilty, concluding that while the complainant appeared credible and genuinely believed the assault occurred, her evidence regarding the critical two-minute window of the alleged offence raised reliability concerns given her extreme intoxication and initial uncertainty.

The accused's evidence, though also raising reliability concerns due to his intoxication and drug use, was sufficiently plausible to create reasonable doubt.

The Crown failed to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

A default hearing under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act concerning accumulated child support arrears of $85,382.

The respondent payor claimed inability to pay due to physical and mental health limitations and a significant decline in business income.

The court found the payor failed to establish valid reasons for non-payment, noting he had substantial equity in two properties totaling approximately $700,000 and had not made meaningful efforts to refinance or sell them.

The court ordered payment of all arrears and accrued support payments by February 27, 2026, with a committal term of 140 days for non-compliance, and ongoing monthly support payments of $7,151 with a three-day incarceration term per missed payment.

The applicant father brought a motion to change a final parenting order regarding the child's involvement in tennis.

The existing order, made on consent in April 2024, limited the child to two tennis training sessions per week and a maximum of 12 tournaments annually.

The father sought to vary these provisions to allow the child to attend all training, matches, qualifications, and tournaments required to maintain her place on Team Ontario and potentially Team Canada.

The respondent mother opposed the motion, arguing there was no material change in circumstances.

The court found that the father failed to meet the threshold requirement of demonstrating a material change in circumstances affecting the child.

The court noted that the child's progression in tennis was contemplated at the time the existing order was made, and the father's claims were substantially similar to those raised prior to the original order.

The court also found that the father had not complied with the existing order and had provided misleading information to the court.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 involving four children (ages 9, 8, 4, and 1) with a history of exposure to intimate partner violence, non-accidental injury, adult conflict, and caregiver instability.

The court determined that both parents posed risks requiring removal from their sole care.

The older children were placed with the mother under supervision with strict conditions, while the younger children were placed with the paternal grandmother under supervision.

All parties received supervised access with the children, with the mother's partner prohibited from any contact.

The decision emphasizes the need for meaningful behavioral change and compliance with supervision orders before unsupervised access or return of children can be considered.

The accused brought a section 11(b) Charter application alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The total delay from the date the Information was sworn to the anticipated end of trial was 909 days (29 months and 25 days), exceeding the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan.

After deducting defence delay and apportioning delay arising from the rescheduling of the original trial date equally between the defence and Crown, the net delay was 562.5 days (18.5 months).

The Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances justifying the delay.

The application was granted and the charges were stayed.

The applicant sought to introduce Signal messages exchanged with the complainant before and after an alleged sexual assault.

The complainant objected to the admissibility of certain exhibits under sections 276 and 278.92 of the Criminal Code.

The court determined that messages sent before the encounter (Exhibit 1) were admissible under both regimes as they were relevant to the issue of consent and did not engage prohibited twin myth reasoning.

Messages sent after the encounter (Exhibit 3) were found not to constitute a record under section 278.1 and were therefore admissible without requiring an application under section 278.92.

The court also addressed the effect of a partial waiver of privacy rights by the complainant.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for a retrial on charges of sexual assault and sexual interference against his stepdaughter, alleging that he was unlawfully overhold in custody for approximately sixteen hours after the Court of Appeal issued an order for his release.

The applicant argued that multiple Charter rights were breached, including rights under sections 7, 9, 10(a), and 11(e) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Crown opposed the stay, characterizing the overhold as an inadvertent or technical breach for which alternative remedies were available.

The court dismissed the application for a stay, finding that while the conduct was offensive and systemic problems existed in the correctional system's procedures, the circumstances did not warrant the drastic remedy of a stay of proceedings.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement arising from a sexual encounter on March 1, 2024.

The complainant testified that she repeatedly communicated her lack of consent and that the defendant forced her to have intercourse despite her protests.

The defendant testified that the complainant communicated consent verbally and through conduct.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, noting that the defendant's text messages the following day constituted an adoptive admission that he engaged in sexual activity with her despite her having said no multiple times.

The court rejected the defendant's explanations for his text messages and found him guilty of sexual assault.

The forcible confinement charge was dismissed as the court was unable to rely on the complainant's description of the restraint incident.

The accused was charged with administering a noxious substance with intent to aggrieve or annoy, and two counts of breaching the peace.

The Crown alleged that the accused sprayed an aerosol substance (believed to be bug spray) at a complainant on a neighbourhood street.

The defence conceded that the accused directed the spray at the complainant and thereby assaulted her, and that he breached court-imposed peace bond and probation terms.

However, the defence argued that the Crown failed to prove the specific elements of administering a noxious substance.

The court found that while the accused administered a substance to the complainant, the substance was not noxious as required by the Criminal Code.

The court acquitted on the noxious substance charge but convicted on the breach of peace counts, staying one count pursuant to Kienapple principles.

The applicant sought a declaration that his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached, and applied for a stay of proceedings under s.24(1).

Although the total delay of 539 days (17.7 months) fell below the presumptive Jordan ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice proceedings, the court found a below-the-ceiling breach.

The applicant demonstrated meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings and established that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The delay was primarily attributable to the Crown's failure to provide video statements in a timely manner and the court's inability to offer trial dates earlier than 13 months from the swearing of the information.

The charges were stayed.

The accused, a 30-31 year old man, was charged with child luring under section 172.1(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for communicating with a 13-14 year old girl via Facebook Messenger over a 17-month period.

The Crown alleged the communications were for the purpose of facilitating sexual assault or abduction.

The defence conceded the accused communicated intentionally with a person under 16 years of age but disputed whether the communications were for the specified criminal purpose.

The court found that the messages, when read contextually and considering the meaning of emojis used, constituted grooming behaviour designed to facilitate a designated offence.

The accused was convicted.

The defendant was convicted after trial of assaulting his wife, breaching an undertaking by communicating with her, and distributing an intimate video of his wife without consent.

The court imposed a global sentence of 14 months in custody followed by three years of probation.

The sentencing decision provides comprehensive analysis of the principles applicable to distributing intimate images without consent, including a detailed framework of aggravating and mitigating factors.

The court found the conduct to be at the higher end of the seriousness spectrum due to the domestic context, premeditated nature, targeted dissemination to family members, identifiability of the victim, and the profound impact on the victim and her family.

The accused pleaded guilty to five counts of voyeurism, five counts of publishing voyeuristic recordings, and one count of breaching a release order.

Between 2016 and 2023, the accused installed hidden recording devices in the homes and vacation property of five victims, recording them in various states of undress.

He subsequently published these intimate images on cyber-exploitation websites, including the victims' real names.

The accused committed some offences while on bail for similar charges involving his step-sister.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8.5 years in the penitentiary, less pre-sentence custody, to be served consecutively to an existing sentence.

The sentence reflects the egregious nature of the offences, the serious breach of trust, the repeated violations of privacy, and the devastating impact on the victims.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a mandatory alcohol screening demand made pursuant to section 320.27(2) of the Criminal Code following a traffic stop for speeding.

The accused made four attempts to provide a breath sample into an approved screening device, each resulting in a "blow interruption" error.

The court found that the accused's attempts were feigned and constituted an unequivocal refusal to comply with the lawful demand.

The court rejected Charter arguments regarding sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused was convicted of failing to comply with the screening demand and also pleaded guilty to speeding.

The applicant was charged with drug and firearm offences following police searches of a residence and motor vehicles that yielded fentanyl, cocaine, a handgun, ammunition, and cash.

The applicant challenged the validity of the search warrants through a Garofoli review, arguing that the information to obtain (ITO) contained material omissions and misrepresentations that would have prevented the warrants from issuing.

The court conducted a detailed review of the ITO, made various corrections through excision and addition of information, and ultimately found that the corrected ITO provided a sufficient basis for the warrants to have issued.

The court found no deliberate misleading or recklessness by the affiant and upheld the warrants, making the evidence admissible at trial.

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance and failure to stop after an accident.

He drove into a parked vehicle, fled at high speed while weaving dangerously through traffic, and struck a second parked vehicle.

The Crown sought jail time followed by probation and a driving prohibition.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, finding that the gravity of the offences, the intentional and cavalier nature of the driving conduct, the offender's criminal and driving record, and the prevalence of dangerous driving incidents in the community warranted incarceration rather than a conditional sentence, despite the offender's youth and rehabilitative potential.