Court of Justice

The applicant, charged with firearm and fraud offences, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter due to unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 21 months and 16 days, exceeding the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial courts.

The court attributed 38 days of delay to the defence.

The Crown argued for additional defence delay and a deduction for COVID-19 ripple effects.

The court rejected the Crown's arguments regarding COVID-19 and most alleged defence delay, finding that significant delay was caused by the Crown's late disclosure of Information to Obtains (ITOs) and court staff shortages, which were not exceptional circumstances attributable to the pandemic in this context.

Consequently, the court found a breach of the applicant's s. 11(b) rights and stayed the charges.

J.R., charged with sexual assault, brought a disclosure motion seeking various communications between the Crown and the complainant/counsel, the Victim Witness Assistant Program (VWAP), and details regarding the storage and destruction of J.R.'s DNA sample from a previous, unrelated case.

The defence argued these materials were relevant to the admissibility of extrinsic sexual activity, the similar fact witness's knowledge, and potential Crown misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the requested communications irrelevant to the evidence and the DNA sample issue unrelated to the current case.

The court also determined that the defence's claim of Crown misconduct was speculative and not supported by evidence of an abuse of process, thus not warranting the broad disclosure sought.

The respondent father brought a motion to lift a stay on his Motion to Change child support, which had been imposed due to his failure to provide financial disclosure and pay outstanding costs.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding he had not made meaningful efforts to comply with previous orders, failed to provide basic financial disclosure (including unfiled tax returns and corporate statements), and had accumulated significant child support arrears and unpaid costs.

The court also found his claim of a material change in circumstances to be weak and drew adverse inferences from his delayed bankruptcy discharge and continued lifestyle despite claimed impecuniosity.

The accused, A.R.-P., was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault, touching for a sexual purpose, exposing genitals, and inviting sexual touching against his stepdaughter, E.E., spanning from 2014 to 2018.

The key issues involved assessing the credibility and reliability of the witnesses, particularly the child victim.

The court applied the principles for assessing child witness testimony, including the W.(D.) framework.

The court found the victim's testimony credible and reliable, rejecting the accused's explanations as preposterous and self-serving.

The accused was convicted on all counts, with further submissions to be heard regarding the application of the Kienapple rule and potential overcharging.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a summary judgment motion.

The respondent mother, F.G., sought to retract her consent to a final custody order placing her 21-month-old son with the maternal grandmother, D.N., which had been made pursuant to an agreed statement of facts.

The court denied the mother's request to retract consent, finding that her arguments did not meet the criteria under Rule 25(19) of the Family Law Rules for setting aside an order, and the alleged "new evidence" was not a valid ground.

The court also found that the Society met the test for summary judgment under Rule 16(6) of the Family Law Rules, as there was no genuine issue for trial regarding disposition and access.

The final order for custody with the maternal grandmother remained in effect, and the final order regarding access to the mother was granted as sought by the Society.

Edward Raymond Gibbins pleaded guilty to uttering threats, confining individuals, careless use of a firearm, and discharging a firearm with recklessness.

The incident involved him confronting victims with a shotgun over a property dispute, threatening them, and firing the weapon.

The Crown sought a four-year custodial sentence, while the Defence proposed a conditional sentence.

The court considered the gravity of the offences, the accused's moral culpability (including alcohol influence and lack of prior record), and mitigating/aggravating factors.

The judge emphasized denunciation and deterrence for firearm offences, ultimately imposing a custodial sentence.

This case concerns a s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay in a sexual assault prosecution.

The court found the net delay of approximately 20 months exceeded the 18-month Jordan ceiling, after accounting for defence waivers and partially deducting delay caused by a mistrial.

The Crown failed to adequately mitigate the delay following the mistrial.

A stay of proceedings was ordered.

The applicant sought a stay of charges due to a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court applied the Jordan framework, calculating total delay, subtracting defence delay (including prolonged non-attendance, inefficient re-tracing of procedural steps, time pursuing resolution, and defence counsel unavailability), and accounting for the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

Despite significant Crown efforts, the net delay still exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases by 22 days.

The court found the s. 11(b) right was breached and stayed the charges.

The father brought a motion seeking a temporary change in the primary residence of his two children (ages 8 and 10) from the mother to himself.

This was based on disclosures made by the children to their counsel regarding the mother's verbal abuse and excessive punishment.

The mother opposed the motion and sought the children's immediate return.

The court dismissed the father's motion, finding that the disclosures, while concerning, did not amount to "compelling circumstances" to justify disturbing the six-year status quo.

The court ordered the children to resume primary residence with the mother, with protective terms regarding parental conduct and discipline.

Abubakar Bukardikwa was convicted of 12 counts related to a shooting incident where he fired a semi-automatic handgun multiple times in a public parking lot, striking the victim, Jason Lamarche, three times in the leg.

The court considered sentencing principles including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, balancing them with the offender's youth and first-offender status.

The decision applied the Kienapple principle for conditional stays and extensively discussed pre-sentence custody credits (Summers and Duncan).

The Crown sought a total of nine years, while the defence proposed five to six years.

The court imposed an effective total sentence of six years, eleven months, and twelve days, comprising a sentence of six years, five months, and twelve days on the charge of discharging a firearm with intent, and a consecutive six-month sentence for possessing a firearm while prohibited.

The accused, Mr. Sills, brought a Charter application to exclude firearms evidence seized from his multi-unit dwelling.

The search warrant, targeting another individual (Mr. Fisher) in a different unit, was found to be facially overbroad as it authorized a search of the entire building despite police knowledge of its multi-unit nature and an undertaking to search only Mr. Fisher's areas.

The court found a serious Section 8 Charter breach (unreasonable search and seizure) and a minimal Section 10(b) breach (delay in right to counsel).

The search was not justified by exigent circumstances under CDSA s. 11(7).

The court excluded the evidence under Section 24(2) of the Charter, emphasizing the high expectation of privacy in one's home and the seriousness of police disregard for established rules, particularly concerning lower-income housing.

This family law trial decision addresses parenting arrangements, decision-making responsibility, and child support arrears.

The applicant mother sought primary residence and sole decision-making due to a history of family violence.

The self-represented respondent father sought equal parenting.

The court acknowledged past family violence but found a significant reduction in risk and improved cooperation between the parties over the past four years.

Primary residence was granted to the mother, while decision-making for education and serious medical issues was ordered to be joint.

The father was ordered to pay ongoing child support and substantial arrears based on an imputed income, with a credit for past rent payments.

International travel with the children was permitted for both parents under specific conditions.

This is a sentencing decision for Darrin Obermok, who pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing death and dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

The charges arose from a collision where Obermok ran a stop sign at high speed (105 km/h in a 60 km/h zone) with alcohol in his system, resulting in the death of a two-year-old child and severe injuries to the child's mother.

The Crown sought a 4-6 year jail sentence, while the defence requested an 18-24 month conditional sentence.

The court rejected the conditional sentence, emphasizing that a penitentiary term was necessary given the gravity of the offences and the offender's responsibility, particularly in light of the 2018 legislative amendments increasing maximum sentences for such crimes.

The presence of alcohol was deemed a significant aggravating factor.

Obermok was sentenced to five years imprisonment and a 15-year driving prohibition.

This criminal trial concerned an assault charge against Tobias Bishop, accused of punching his brother, Shai Bishop.

The Crown presented direct evidence from the complainant and corroborating police testimony, detailing the incident, the complainant's injuries, and the disarray of the shared residence.

The defence challenged the complainant's credibility and reliability, suggesting he was motivated to remove the accused from the home and that the accused was asleep during the alleged incident.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, supported by independent police observations, and rejected the accused's general denial as inconsistent with the overall evidence.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The accused, J.U., brought an application to exclude evidence (firearms and a crossbow) seized from his matrimonial home, alleging a breach of his Section 8 Charter right against unreasonable search and seizure.

Police entered the shared home at the invitation of J.U.'s estranged wife, A.U., and seized firearms found in J.U.'s private bedroom, gun cabinets, basement, and garage without a warrant.

The Crown conceded a Charter breach but argued for admission under Section 24(2).

The court found that A.U. could not waive J.U.'s privacy rights in his private areas or jointly owned items, and no exigent circumstances justified the warrantless search and seizure.

Balancing the seriousness of the breach, its impact on the accused's Indigenous cultural practices (hunting), and society's interest in adjudication, the court excluded the evidence, emphasizing the sacrosanct nature of home privacy and criticizing police expediency over Charter compliance.

B.H. was sentenced for sexual assault, making child pornography (victim was his 16-year-old daughter), and careless storage of a firearm.

The court considered an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Supplementary Agreed Statement of Facts.

The victim impact statement highlighted the profound harm caused to the victim and her family.

The court applied sentencing principles under the Criminal Code, including denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, and specifically addressed the impact of R. v. Friesen on sentences for child sexual offences.

The court also applied Gladue principles, acknowledging the defendant's Indigenous heritage and its intergenerational effects, which led to a reduction in the otherwise proportionate sentence.

A global sentence of seven years incarceration was imposed, along with several ancillary orders.