Court of Justice

This decision addresses the admissibility of a photograph in a criminal trial for attempted murder and aggravated assault.

The Crown sought to admit a photograph alleged to depict the accused at the scene of a shooting, despite the defence's argument that it lacked authentication due to informer privilege and the absence of a direct authenticating witness.

The court ruled that the photograph was admissible, finding it had been authenticated by circumstantial evidence through comparison with other reliable video and photographic evidence.

Concerns regarding the photo's origin or potential tampering were deemed matters of weight for the trier of fact, not admissibility.

The applicant Society, joined by the mother and Inuit representative, sought to vary an interim order to place children with the mother and permit their relocation to Northern Quebec.

The father opposed, requesting custody and maintenance of the non-removal order.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the parents' separation and the father's criminal charges.

Applying principles from the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families, with a strong emphasis on cultural continuity for Indigenous children, the court granted the Society's motion, allowing the mother to relocate with the children to their Inuit community, despite the impact on the father's access.

The defendant, K.B., a 27-year-old first offender with no criminal record and significant family caregiving responsibilities, was found guilty of sexual assault involving two sleeping victims, one with digital penetration.

The Crown sought six months of real jail, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court, emphasizing proportionality and the individualized nature of sentencing for first offenders, determined that a conditional sentence was appropriate, capable of achieving denunciation and deterrence without requiring incarceration.

K.B. received a 12-month conditional sentence (9 months house arrest, 3 months curfew) followed by 18 months probation and community service.

The defendant was charged with multiple Criminal Code and Controlled Drugs and Substances Act offences following a minor collision, flight from the scene, and discovery of a firearm and illicit drugs.

Key issues included identity, the admissibility of cell phone data under section 8 of the Charter due to alleged police non-compliance with reporting requirements, and proof of drug quantity for trafficking charges.

The court found the defendant guilty of most charges, including possession of the firearm and drugs, but acquitted him of possession for the purpose of trafficking due to insufficient evidence on drug quantity.

Cody Rodgers pleaded guilty to aggravated sexual assault and being unlawfully in a dwelling-house with intent to commit an indictable offence.

The victim, Ms. A.C., was violently assaulted and sexually assaulted in her own apartment, suffering severe physical and psychological injuries.

The court considered aggravating factors including the brutal nature of the assault, the home invasion aspect, and the fact that the offender was on a release order for another sexual assault at the time.

Mitigating factors included his youth, early guilty plea, and rehabilitative efforts in custody.

The court also addressed Gladue principles and mental health/substance abuse as potential mitigating factors, ultimately finding limited applicability given the severity of the crime and lack of a direct causal link.

The judge imposed a sentence of 9 years' incarceration, which, after credit for pre-sentence custody (including adjustments for time served on another sentence and lockdown conditions), resulted in a net sentence of 5 years and 318 days, along with various ancillary orders.

The accused, an Indigenous land protector, pled guilty to mischief and failing to comply with an undertaking.

The central issue on sentencing was whether to grant an absolute discharge or a suspended sentence under section 730 of the Criminal Code.

Relying on expert evidence regarding Haudenosaunee legal traditions and the Two Row Wampum, the court interpreted the 'public interest' requirement in section 730 to mean the Haudenosaunee public interest.

Finding that the accused's actions as a land protector were not contrary to the Haudenosaunee public interest, the court granted an absolute discharge.

This trial concerned parenting and child support for the parties' daughter, Melanie.

The father sought sole decision-making responsibility and primary residence, alleging the mother was a flight risk and had poor judgment regarding Melanie's documents and travel.

The mother sought shared or sole decision-making and primary residence.

The court found the mother was not a flight risk and that the father had exaggerated or fabricated some claims, and that the paternal grandmother's significant involvement and negative views of the mother were detrimental to Melanie's best interests.

The court granted joint decision-making responsibility, with the mother having final say in case of disagreement, and ordered Melanie's primary residence to be with the mother.

Specific orders were made regarding document custody and travel restrictions.

Child support was also determined, with the father ordered to pay retroactive and prospective child support to the mother, and the mother to pay prospective child support to the father for a period.

The accused was arrested for drug trafficking after police observed a hand-to-hand transaction.

During the arrest and subsequent booking, the accused was subjected to multiple searches, including a frisk search and an authorized strip search.

The accused brought a Charter application alleging breaches of his rights under ss. 7, 8, 9, and 10(b), arguing unlawful arrest, improper strip searches in the field and at the station, and a delay in implementing his right to counsel.

The court dismissed all Charter applications, finding the arrest lawful, the field and booking searches to be valid frisk searches rather than strip searches, the authorized strip search justified, and no deliberate delay in providing access to counsel.

The accused was found guilty of trafficking, possession for the purpose of trafficking, and breaching a release order.

The defendant, Stavros Tsoraklidis, was charged with assault with a weapon and administering a noxious substance after spraying the complainant with pepper spray.

The central issue at trial was whether the defendant acted in self-defence.

The court found the defendant's testimony lacked credibility and reliability, particularly regarding his claim that the complainant threatened him with a boxcutter.

The court concluded that the defendant's actions were offensive and motivated by anger, not self-defence, and that the force used was disproportionate and unreasonable.

The Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the conditions for lawful self-defence were not met.

The accused, David Crowe, was sentenced after being found guilty of criminal harassment, harassing communications, mischief, and multiple breaches of probation and release orders.

The Crown sought a global sentence of two years less a day in custody, while the defence requested a suspended sentence.

The court considered the severe and long-lasting impact on the victim, the aggravating factors of intimate partner violence, the deliberate and sophisticated nature of the harassment, and the repeated breaches of court orders.

Despite these aggravating factors, the court also weighed the accused's significant and genuine efforts at rehabilitation since his arrest, including sobriety and community engagement.

Ultimately, the court imposed concurrent conditional sentence orders of four months for the breaches and sixty days for impersonation, followed by a three-year probation order, noting that the accused had already served the equivalent of an 18-month sentence for the harassment counts through pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions.

A DNA order and a weapons prohibition were also imposed.

Omar Bataineh was found guilty after trial of failing to stop after an accident resulting in death.

The Crown sought 12-18 months jail, while the defence requested a conditional sentence.

The court found that Bataineh was aware he struck the victim, stopped briefly away from the scene, and then deliberately drove past the scene again without stopping.

Despite his good character and stated remorse, the court noted a lack of insight into his behaviour, as he described himself as a victim.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence, the court sentenced Bataineh to 12 months in custody, a three-year driving prohibition, and one year of probation.

This ruling addresses the sufficiency of a judicial summary provided by the Crown in place of a heavily redacted Information to Obtain (ITO) a search warrant.

The applicant challenged the adequacy of the summary, arguing it did not provide enough information to allow for a proper challenge.

The court, applying principles from Crevier, 2015 ONCA 619, found the judicial summary sufficient, noting that it must inform the accused of the general nature of the redacted details without revealing privileged information.

The court dismissed the applicant's challenge, stating that the summary was adequate to allow the applicant to challenge the excised material.

The defendant, Van Drunen and Sons Gravel Limited, brought a motion for a non-suit in a provincial offences case, seeking dismissal of a charge for encumbering a highway contrary to a municipal by-law.

The court granted the motion, finding that the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case.

The judge determined that the bin in question did not encumber the roadway, the identity of the responsible party (defendant vs. bailee) was ambiguous, and the municipal permit specifically allowed equipment (like the bin) to occupy the road during the relevant hours.

The defendant, Astrit Shkurta, brought an application under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of charges due to unreasonable delay.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating the total delay as 802 days.

After subtracting 286 days attributed to defence delay (including delays in Crown Pretrial Hearing (CPT) and Judicial Pretrial Hearing (JPT) scheduling, and lack of contact between the defendant and counsel), the net delay was found to be 516 days (16.96 months).

As this net delay was below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice, the court found no s. 11(b) breach and dismissed the application.

The court also noted no evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to the delay in this specific case.

The defendant, Garrett Depippo, was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with an illegal blood alcohol content.

The court addressed whether the roadside breath demand satisfied the "immediacy" requirement and if the defendant had a realistic opportunity to consult counsel.

The court found the immediacy requirement was met and there was no realistic opportunity for counsel at roadside, dismissing the Charter application.

The court then found the defendant guilty of impaired driving based on the totality of evidence, including his own testimony and poor judgment.

Following a Supreme Court decision (R. v. Breault), the excess blood alcohol count was stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Brenda Boutrous pleaded guilty to Dangerous Operation Causing Death after a collision where she was speeding at 151 km/hr, striking another vehicle and causing the death of Dennis Malone.

The court considered the victim's U-turn as a factual contributor but found Boutrous's excessive speed to be the significant cause.

The sentencing decision balanced denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, considering Boutrous's youth, guilty plea, lack of prior record, and profound remorse.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, followed by probation and a driving prohibition.

The applicant sought an interim disbursement of $25,000 to retain an expert to review the respondent's income report in a motion to change child support.

The respondent, a church minister, had previously agreed to an imputed income of $300,000 but now sought a reduction based on a self-retained expert's report.

The court found prima facie merit in the applicant's argument that the respondent was attempting to relitigate the initial proceeding and that there were significant credibility and disclosure issues regarding the respondent's complex financial affairs, which were intertwined with his church and other businesses.

The court granted the interim disbursement, finding it necessary to level the playing field and that the respondent had the ability to pay while the applicant did not.