Court of Justice

The defendant was charged with dangerous driving and assault causing bodily harm following a highway incident and subsequent confrontation.

The Crown alleged the defendant engaged in aggressive road rage behavior by pursuing the victim's vehicle at high speed on a wet highway while flashing high beams for approximately 20 kilometres, followed by a physical altercation at a roadside intersection.

The defendant was found guilty of dangerous driving, as his conduct constituted a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable driver.

However, the defendant was acquitted of assault causing bodily harm due to insufficient evidence to establish that the injury was caused by any deliberate act or felonious intent, given the conflicting evidence regarding the nature of the physical altercation.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle with a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The accused brought a Charter application to exclude breath sample evidence, alleging multiple breaches of his rights including: (1) arrest and approved instrument demand without reasonable grounds; (2) delayed notification of the right to counsel; (3) failure to facilitate access to counsel at the roadside and counsel of choice at the station; and (4) video recording of cell toilet use.

The court found one Charter breach—a nine-minute delay in informing the accused of his right to counsel—but admitted the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter, finding that exclusion would harm the administration of justice more than admission.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with eight counts relating to possession and trafficking of controlled substances (cocaine, ketamine, MDMA, and LSD) and exporting controlled substances.

The accused admitted to purchasing a bulk quantity of drugs with 15 friends for consumption at electronic dance music festivals.

The accused stored the drugs at his residence, divided them into individual portions for his friends, and attempted to ship some to Miami.

The court found the accused guilty of four counts of possession for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of possession for the purpose of exporting, but acquitted on the two counts of exporting, finding the actus reus incomplete as the drugs never left Canada.

The accused pleaded guilty to six offences arising from an incident in which he entered a police station with an airsoft gun and fired multiple times at officers and a civilian staff member, striking one officer in the leg.

The accused was motivated by suicidal ideation and intended to provoke police into shooting him.

The court imposed a sentence of one year imprisonment (9 months and 6 days after credit for pre-sentence custody and bail conditions), followed by two years' probation, a DNA order, and a five-year weapons prohibition.

The court balanced significant aggravating factors (planning, danger to public, victim impact) against substantial mitigating factors (mental illness causal link, remorse, rehabilitation progress, no criminal record, and collateral consequences).

The accused challenged the validity of a search warrant executed at his apartment, alleging it violated section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The accused argued there were no reasonable grounds to believe he was the individual referred to by a confidential informant, that he resided at the searched location, or that evidence would be found there.

The court upheld the search warrant, finding that the police had established reasonable grounds based on the informant's credible and corroborated information, vehicle registration records, driver's licence information, and CCTV footage showing the accused's presence at the apartment.

The court rejected the accused's arguments and dismissed the Charter application.

The accused pleaded guilty to break and enter, robbery, forcible confinement, and possession of property obtained by crime over $5,000 following a violent home invasion.

The Crown sought an eight-year penitentiary sentence, while defence counsel argued for four years, emphasizing the accused's lesser involvement compared to co-accused, youth, and lack of prior record.

The court sentenced the accused to five years less pre-trial custody, finding that while the offence was serious and warranted substantial denunciation and deterrence, the accused's age, early guilty plea, lack of criminal record, and good rehabilitation prospects, combined with his secondary role in the violence, distinguished the case from more serious home invasion precedents.

The accused pleaded guilty to trafficking in cocaine (55.29 grams) and failure to comply with a release order.

The Crown sought two years imprisonment while defence counsel sought six months less one day.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence, considering the seriousness of cocaine trafficking, the offender's status as a mid-level trafficker motivated by financial gain, and significant mitigating factors including the offender's youth, genuine remorse, strong family support, reasonable prospects for rehabilitation, and social context evidence regarding systemic discrimination affecting the offender as a Black man.

The sentence was reduced from a proportionate 24 months due to the offender's existing significant penitentiary sentence and the mitigating circumstances presented.

The accused was charged with 27 offences arising from a shooting incident on the Six Nations Reserve on May 6, 2024.

The Crown alleged the accused fired a firearm at a van fleeing his residence after a physical altercation with three women.

The Crown conceded insufficient evidence for attempted murder charges.

The court found the accused guilty of five counts of pointing a firearm, careless use of a firearm, uttering a threat, five counts of discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life, possessing a weapon for a dangerous purpose, breaching probation orders, breaching a firearms prohibition order, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and driving while prohibited.

The court acquitted on two assault charges and two firearm licensing charges, finding the weapon met the definition of firearm under section 2 of the Criminal Code but not the enhanced definition under section 84(3)(d).

The defendant pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism contrary to section 162(1) of the Criminal Code.

Over a six-month period, he surreptitiously observed and video recorded four female roommates using a bathroom in their shared residence through a hole in the wall.

The Crown and defence initially submitted for a 12-month conditional sentence order, but the court rejected this joint submission and imposed a custodial sentence of 42 days on each count (168 days total, approximately five and one-half months) to be served consecutively, followed by 18 months probation with conditions including counselling, no contact orders, and a 100-metre exclusion zone from the victims' residences, workplaces, and places of study.

The accused pleaded guilty to importing a Schedule 1 substance (ketamine) pursuant to s. 6(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The accused arrived at Toronto Pearson Airport from Frankfurt, Germany on March 7, 2025, with 7.985 kg of ketamine concealed in his suitcase.

The Crown sought an eight-year custodial sentence, while the defence sought four years with enhanced pre-sentence custody credit.

The court imposed a six-year custodial sentence, reduced by 315 days of Summers credit and 194 days of Duncan credit for harsh detention conditions, resulting in a net sentence of four years and seven months.

Ancillary orders included a mandatory 10-year weapons prohibition, DNA order, and forfeiture order.

The Crown brought an application under section 117.05 of the Criminal Code seeking forfeiture of firearms and ammunition seized from the respondent, a prohibition on possession of weapons for five years, and ancillary orders.

The respondent opposed the application and sought a stay of proceedings alleging abuse of process.

The court found that the respondent exhibited a dangerously cavalier attitude toward firearm ownership, demonstrated by his reckless conduct in allowing an unlicensed individual to take possession of a newly purchased shotgun and ammunition.

The court also found that the respondent harbored irrational grievances against the justice system and lacked the emotional stability and responsibility required of a licensed gun owner.

The Crown's application was granted in its entirety.

This is a costs decision following a trial on child support issues.

The court had previously determined that the mother owed child support arrears of $19,045 and ordered her to pay ongoing child support of $597 monthly based on an imputed annual income of $40,000.

The father sought costs of $26,791.

The mother did not make written submissions but argued orally that she could not afford to pay costs in addition to her support obligations.

The court found the father was the more successful party at trial, though not completely successful.

The mother engaged in unreasonable conduct including misrepresenting her income, hiding income, and failing to provide timely financial disclosure.

The court awarded costs of $10,000, payable in monthly instalments of $200 starting January 1, 2026, taking into account the mother's limited financial circumstances while recognizing that her unreasonable conduct contributed to the litigation costs.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that the right to trial within a reasonable time had been violated.

The total delay from charge to anticipated trial conclusion was 951 days (31.26 months), exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court matters.

The Crown argued that a substantial portion of the delay should be attributed to the defence due to late notice of the delay application and failure to raise the issue in a timely manner.

The court found that 448 days of delay should be attributed to the defence, resulting in net delay of 503 days (16.5 months), which fell below the presumptive ceiling.

The application was dismissed on its merits.

The court also addressed procedural violations of the Criminal Rules and Practice Direction but exercised discretion to permit the application to proceed rather than dismiss it summarily.

The offender was convicted of sexual assault and four counts of failing to comply with a condition of a release order.

The offender sexually assaulted his former intimate partner while subject to a release order prohibiting contact with her.

He breached the non-contact condition by contacting her by telephone the day following the assault.

The Crown sought a global sentence of two years jail followed by 12 months probation, along with ancillary orders.

The defence argued that the offender's pre-sentence custody of 310 real days, credited as 465 days, was sufficient time served given mitigating factors including harsh detention conditions.

The court imposed a sentence of approximately 15.5 months jail followed by 12 months probation, taking into account aggravating factors including persistence in sexual advances despite repeated refusals, the statutory aggravation of intimate partner violence, the offender's criminal record, and breach of court orders, balanced against mitigating factors including remorse, family support, and harsh pre-sentence custody conditions.

This trial determined the applicant's child support obligations for the parties' seven-year-old son.

The respondent sought retroactive child support from January 1, 2021, and requested that income be imputed to the applicant.

The applicant's amended application was struck due to non-compliance with financial disclosure orders.

The court found the presumptive start date for retroactive support to be May 1, 2021, and declined to depart from this date despite the applicant's hardship.

The court imputed income to the applicant based on his Sports Canada athletic grants and his capacity to earn as a personal fitness trainer.

The applicant was ordered to pay retroactive arrears of $12,431.26 at $150 per month, plus ongoing child support of $284 per month starting October 1, 2025.

The offender pleaded guilty to possession of a loaded, restricted firearm, careless use of a firearm resulting in injury, and possession of cocaine for trafficking.

The court imposed a global five-year sentence with credit for pre-sentence custody, resulting in a two-year custodial term followed by three years of probation.

The decision extensively addresses systemic racism, the deplorable conditions at the Toronto South Detention Centre, and the impact of family separation on the offender's children.

The court balanced denunciation and deterrence with rehabilitation, restraint, and consideration of the offender's difficult life experiences and strong family support.

A motion for mistrial was brought by the respondent father in a child protection status review application involving two children.

The father and the Office of the Children's Lawyer sought to overturn the trial on grounds including the agency's failure to promptly disclose a new investigation commenced during trial, alleged Charter rights violations, sequential and redacted disclosure, failure to produce police records, the children's expressed preference for a new trial, and potential judicial bias.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the agency's failure to promptly disclose the investigation was imprudent, the prejudice could be remedied through recalling witnesses for cross-examination.

The court found no fatal wounding of the trial process and determined that a mistrial should only be granted as a last resort in the clearest of cases.