Court of Justice

The defendant was charged with nine criminal offences, including uttering threats, criminal harassment, and breaching bail orders, against his former spouse and her mother.

The court assessed witness credibility and circumstantial evidence, applying the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant was found guilty of four counts (contact contrary to a release order, uttering threats to the complainant, criminal harassment, and uttering threats to the complainant's mother) and acquitted of five counts due to insufficient proof of authorship of certain social media messages or lack of evidence regarding specific release orders.

The Crown appealed an acquittal on charges of careless driving causing death and bodily harm.

The appeal focused on errors in the trial judge's application of the principled approach to hearsay admissibility, specifically regarding threshold reliability and the consideration of corroborative evidence.

The Crown also argued the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for not applying a relaxed standard of admissibility for exculpatory evidence and improperly used *voir dire* evidence to assess witness credibility.

The court found multiple legal errors, including the misapplication of hearsay rules and the failure to provide sufficient reasons, warranting a new trial.

This ruling provides the judge's full reasons for citing defence counsel, Ms. Eliany, in contempt.

The contempt arose from Ms. Eliany's refusal to provide a requested memorandum outlining her position on a s. 276 application during a judicial pre-trial conference.

The court affirmed its authority under s. 625 of the Criminal Code to order such a memo, emphasizing the importance of meaningful participation in pre-trials to promote fair and expeditious hearings and efficient case management.

The judge found that Ms. Eliany's refusal to comply with the order constituted a failure to effectively participate in the pre-trial process.

Mario Mendonca was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol content over 80 mg.

The defence filed a Charter application alleging breaches of sections 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeking exclusion of evidence.

The court conducted a blended voir dire and dismissed all Charter arguments, finding no breaches.

The evidence, including blood alcohol readings, was admitted.

Mendonca was found guilty on both charges.

Melanie Pereira was found guilty of conspiracy to traffic cocaine, conspiracy to traffic fentanyl, and possession for the purpose of trafficking in both drugs.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the significant amounts of fentanyl and cocaine, and mitigating factors, such as her status as a first offender, her remorse, and the impact of incarceration on her two young children.

The Crown sought an eight-year sentence for fentanyl and a 5-6 year concurrent sentence for cocaine, while the defence sought a reformatory sentence of two years less a day.

The court sentenced Ms. Pereira to 60 months (5 years) imprisonment for each count, to be served concurrently, along with a 10-year section 109 order and a DNA order.

Peter Robbins, charged with assault and multiple counts of sexual assault, applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, arguing his right to be tried within a reasonable time was violated.

The total delay from the laying of the information to the anticipated end of the trial was 562 days (18 months and 14 days), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling set by R. v. Jordan.

The court analyzed periods of delay, including defence-caused delays such as counsel's unavailability and rejection of earlier trial dates.

The court found that 57 days of the delay were attributable to the defence.

After deducting this, the net delay was 507 days (16.67 months), which falls slightly below the 18-month presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, Daniel Gendron, was charged with sexual assault.

The Crown alleged that Gendron had sexual intercourse with the complainant, S.M., while she was incapacitated and unable to consent, possibly due to being drugged.

The court found S.M.'s testimony to be unreliable and inconsistent, particularly regarding the timing of text messages and her belief in her friend's psychic abilities.

Due to the lack of corroboration for the critical aspects of S.M.'s testimony, the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that S.M. was unconscious or incapable of consenting, or that she had withdrawn her consent.

The charge was dismissed.

The accused brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on an alleged violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter, citing a total delay of 24 months and 22 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for summary conviction matters.

The court found that the defence was "markedly indifferent" to securing an earlier trial date, as evidenced by their failure to clearly assert an 11(b) breach or take proactive steps to expedite the matter after trial dates were set.

Consequently, the court apportioned a significant portion of the delay (7 months and 3 days) to the defence, resulting in a net delay of 17 months and 19 days, which falls below the Jordan ceiling.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The applicant mother sought retroactive and ongoing child support for two children.

The respondent father had failed to disclose his income for over a decade and significantly underpaid support.

Applying the Colucci framework, the court found the father engaged in blameworthy conduct by hiding his income and underpaying support.

The court deviated from the presumptive three-year start date, ordering retroactive support back to 2013.

Furthermore, due to the father's recent unexplained income reduction and failure to provide full financial disclosure, the court imputed his income at $127,057 for ongoing support based on his past earning capacity.

This is a sentencing decision for a young person (H.W.) found guilty of sexual assault.

The court considered the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) principles, including the least restrictive sentence and the promotion of responsibility.

A key issue was whether the offence caused 'serious bodily harm,' which would preclude a deferred custody and supervision order under YCJA s. 42(5)(a).

The court found that the victim's profound and life-altering psychological impact, including PTSD, constituted serious bodily harm, thus precluding a deferred custody order.

Despite mitigating factors such as the offender's age and lack of prior record, the serious nature of the assault and the absence of remorse warranted a custodial sentence.

The court imposed a nine-month custody and supervision order, followed by fifteen months of probation, along with a DNA order and firearms prohibition.

The defendant, Mikal Richards, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application seeking a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 15 months and 26 days for a 5-day in-custody trial, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan.

The court found that the defence did not demonstrate sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings, citing repeated postponements of the bail hearing and delays in scheduling judicial pre-trials.

While acknowledging the Crown's unreasonable delay in disclosure, particularly the ITO, the court concluded that the case did not take "markedly longer than it reasonably should have" when viewed holistically, considering the actions of both parties and local conditions.

The application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.

The accused, Cullen McDonald, was charged with common nuisance under Section 180(1)(a) of the Criminal Code, for gathering and encouraging gatherings in contravention of COVID-19 emergency legislation.

The Crown alleged his actions endangered public health and safety.

The court examined the actus reus and mens rea of the offence, concluding that the provincial offence of violating a Stay-At-Home Order could not be elevated to a criminal common nuisance, and that the Crown failed to prove the necessary mens rea, as there was no evidence the accused knew his outdoor protest created a risk of serious harm.

The court also discussed, though rendered moot by the acquittal, the application of the Canadian Bill of Rights and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the provincial COVID-19 restrictions, finding the restrictions likely infringed Charter rights but declining to rule on constitutionality.

This endorsement addresses the quantum of costs awarded to the respondent after the applicant's spousal support application was dismissed due to abandonment and under Rule 1(8)(b) of the Family Law Rules.

The applicant, an unrepresented litigant, pursued a claim of questionable merit, failed to comply with court orders, and ultimately ceased participation, forcing the respondent to incur significant legal expenses for trial preparation.

The court found the applicant's conduct unreasonable and in bad faith, noting her refusal to accept reasonable settlement offers, including one that would have discharged a $65,000 debt and waived all costs.

Applying principles of indemnification, settlement encouragement, and sanctioning inappropriate behaviour, the court awarded the respondent full recovery costs.

The defendant, Adam Gardin, was sentenced for eight counts of willfully failing to comply with a probation order that included restitution terms.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 days in custody for each count, to be served consecutively, totaling 240 days incarceration.

Additionally, the court ordered a one-year continuation of his original 2019 probation order, rejecting the prosecution's request for a new two-year probation order with modified restitution terms due to lack of jurisdiction under the Provincial Offences Act for a new order in this context.

The decision emphasized the defendant's lack of remorse, pattern of non-compliance, and the ongoing harm to victims as aggravating factors.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a four-day trial on parenting and support.

The mother (applicant) was largely successful on parenting and more successful on financial issues, including imputed income and spousal support.

The father (respondent) engaged in serious unreasonable behaviour by breaching court orders regarding the child's return to Canada.

However, the mother was found to have acted in bad faith by altering a text message.

The court awarded the mother $20,000 in costs, but ordered her to pay the father $5,000 due to her bad faith, resulting in a net costs award of $15,000 to the mother, payable in installments.