Court of Justice

A young person was convicted of robbery contrary to section 343 of the Criminal Code following a planned, coordinated attack on a victim at a bus stop.

The victim was robbed of an expensive coat at knifepoint and suffered a concussion requiring hospitalization and causing him to lose his academic year.

The court imposed an 18-month probation sentence with ancillary conditions including firearms prohibition and DNA orders, accepting a joint submission from Crown and defence counsel despite noting that other sanctions would better meet the sentencing objectives under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The offender pleaded not guilty but accepted an agreed statement of fact regarding three offences: break and enter a dwelling house, sexual assault, and uttering threats to cause death.

The offender, a 20-year-old first offender with no criminal record, broke into a neighbour's home at night while intoxicated, confined and threatened the occupants, and sexually assaulted one of them.

The court imposed a four-year prison sentence less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail conditions, resulting in a remaining custodial term of 43 months.

The court considered the offender's youth, remorse, rehabilitative potential, and family support as mitigating factors, but emphasized the serious and violent nature of the offences and their significant impact on the victim and her family.

The applicant brought a motion to extend time to file a conviction appeal under the Provincial Offences Act following a guilty plea to two offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The applicant had previously obtained an extension of time and proceeded with an appeal, during which he abandoned his conviction appeal and proceeded only on sentence.

The court dismissed the motion on three grounds: (1) the application was statute-barred under s. 85(2) of the POA, which limits applications to one per conviction; (2) the conviction appeal had already been dismissed when the applicant abandoned it during the prior appeal hearing; and (3) the application lacked merit, with no valid reason provided for the delay and no substantive grounds for appeal.

The defendant was charged with sexual assault and forcible confinement following an incident in November 2021 where he sexually assaulted his roommate despite her prior and explicit rejection of his advances.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and applied for a verdict of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD) under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown conceded that the defendant suffered from a qualifying disease of the mind, but contested whether he was incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his actions or knowing they were wrong.

The court found that while the defendant suffered from a mental disorder, the evidence was insufficient to establish that he lacked the requisite capacity under section 16, and therefore rejected the NCRMD application.

The respondent mother sought permission to relocate the child, Mason, from Ontario to New Brunswick.

The applicant father opposed the relocation.

The court considered the child's best interests under the Children's Law Reform Act, including the child's strong wishes and preferences to remain in Ontario, the quality of the father's relationship with the child, the lack of compelling reasons for relocation, and the mother's concerning pattern of non-compliance with court orders.

The court denied the temporary relocation order, finding that relocation was not in the child's best interests at this time.

The court imposed sentence on a long-term offender designated in a prior decision dated July 21, 2025.

The offender was convicted of robbery and had a substantial criminal history including prior robbery convictions and an 18-year sentence for attempted murder.

The Crown sought a 7-year sentence with a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The defence sought a time-served sentence with a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The court imposed a sentence of 6 years and 10 months, with enhanced pre-sentence custody credit of 4 years and 9 months, resulting in 2 years and 1 month to be served in federal penitentiary, followed by a 10-year long-term supervision order.

The sentence was based on the need for intensive treatment in a federal penitentiary to address the offender's polysubstance abuse, gambling addiction, and antisocial personality disorder.

The accused was charged with possession of a stolen vehicle and five firearms-related offences after police discovered a sawed-off shotgun and ammunition in a minivan he was driving.

The trial judge found the accused not guilty of possession of stolen property but guilty of all firearms offences.

The key issues were whether the minivan was stolen (turning on the credibility of the registered owner whose testimony contained numerous inconsistencies) and whether the sawed-off shotgun constituted a "firearm" under the Criminal Code despite having a detached forearm and being in poor condition.

The appellant appealed a conviction under section 4(1) of the Dog Owners Liability Act (DOLA) for failing to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent her dog from biting a person.

The trial Justice of the Peace found the appellant guilty and imposed restrictions on two dogs and fines totalling $800.

The appeal court allowed the appeal in part, finding that while the conviction was supported by evidence, the trial judge erred in failing to identify which specific dog was responsible for the bite and in imposing restrictions on both dogs without evidentiary support.

The court set aside the fines and restrictions on the younger dog (Dolly), finding that only the older dog (Stella) was involved in the incident.

The offender was convicted of two counts of assault with a weapon and one count of using an imitation firearm to commit an indictable offence.

The offender was experiencing drug-induced psychosis at the time of the offences, having consumed marijuana despite a documented history of psychotic episodes triggered by cannabis use and multiple hospitalizations where medical professionals warned him of the dangers.

The offender absconded before sentencing.

The court imposed a two-year custodial sentence (one year concurrent on assault charges, one year consecutive on the firearm charge) plus two years probation, finding the offender's moral culpability to be extremely high given his awareness of the risks and prior violent incidents while intoxicated.

The accused pleaded guilty to one count of sexual interference contrary to section 151(b) of the Criminal Code for kissing and groping the breast area of his teenage stepdaughter.

The Crown proceeded by summary conviction.

The court imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day followed by three years of probation, along with a ten-year section 161 order, a ten-year SOIRA order, GPS monitoring, and a DNA order.

The sentencing balanced denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives with rehabilitation and restraint principles, recognizing exceptional circumstances that justified a conditional sentence despite the serious nature of the offence.

The accused was convicted of possession of a loaded, restricted firearm with accessible ammunition, careless storage of a firearm, possession of a prohibited device and ammunition without a licence, and disobeying a lawful court order prohibiting weapon possession.

The court imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment on the firearm-related offences (served concurrently) and six months imprisonment on the breach of court order (served consecutively), for a total of three years and six months, less 574 days of enhanced pre-sentence custody credit, resulting in a remaining custodial term of one year, eleven months, and eight days.

The court found that the accused transported the loaded firearm across provincial borders in a motor vehicle and possessed it in public places, constituting aggravating factors.

The court emphasized the serious and escalating problem of illegal firearm possession in Peel Region and the paramount importance of denunciation and deterrence in sentencing for such offences.

Two motions were heard regarding parenting time, government documentation, international travel, and child support for a child born in October 2023.

The parties never cohabited.

The mother sought to impute income to the father based on his corporate business operating group homes, claiming he sheltered money to reduce child support obligations.

The father sought expanded parenting time and opposed the mother's travel and documentation requests.

The court ordered a gradual increase in parenting time, permitted the mother to obtain government documentation and travel internationally without the father's consent, and imputed an annual income of $120,000 to the father for child support purposes based on an amount the parties had previously agreed upon, finding the father's claimed $60,000 salary was not credible given his business grossed over one million dollars annually.

The accused was charged with sexual assault against the complainant on November 25, 2023.

The Crown alleged that the accused forcibly sexually assaulted the complainant in a bathroom at the residence of a third party.

The accused denied the allegations and claimed the assault did not occur.

The trial proceeded on the basis of credibility assessments and circumstantial evidence, including DNA evidence, witness testimony regarding the complainant's immediate post-assault demeanor, and the accused's suspicious conduct and flight from the scene.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and reliable, rejected the accused's testimony as internally and externally inconsistent, and found that the Crown proved all essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

A temporary care and custody motion under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place three children (ages 11, 7, and 4) in its temporary care and custody with discretionary access to their parents.

The mother sought custody or generous parenting time; the father sought joint or sole custody, or alternatively placement with his sister.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent's care and that supervision terms would be inadequate.

The court placed the children in the society's temporary care and custody, with the mother's access fully supervised and the father granted minimum weekly unsupervised visits subject to conditions.

The decision addresses physical abuse allegations, emotional harm, parental emotional dysregulation, and the children's expressed wishes to remain in foster care.

The accused was charged with three firearm-related offences: possession of a loaded prohibited firearm contrary to s. 95(1) of the Criminal Code, unauthorized possession of a firearm contrary to s. 91(1), and possession of a firearm knowing its possession was unauthorized contrary to s. 92(1).

The Crown's case relied on circumstantial evidence that a loaded handgun and ammunition were discovered by the accused's father under a mattress in the basement bedroom where the accused resided.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused possessed the firearm.

The court found that the accused's knowledge and control of the firearm was the only reasonable inference from the totality of the evidence and convicted on all three counts.

The respondent brought a motion to change a spousal support order dated June 20, 2013, seeking to terminate his obligation to pay $1,620 per month and claiming overpayment.

The applicant opposed the motion and sought adjustment of support starting December 1, 2023, with payment of arrears.

The court found a material change in circumstances due to the respondent's retirement at age 67 following termination of employment.

The court exercised discretion to change support effective January 1, 2024, rather than the presumptive date of September 14, 2023, considering the respondent's higher income in prior years, lack of financial disclosure, and the applicant's financial hardship.

The court ordered reduced spousal support of $500 monthly for 2024, $300 monthly for January to July 2025, and no support thereafter, with arrears of $21,485.14 payable at $250 monthly.

The defendants were charged with violating the Huron County Conservation By-Law by destroying trees in a woodland and failing to comply with a stop work order.

The prosecution proved that approximately 6.8 acres (2.75 hectares) of woodland containing thousands of trees was destroyed between March and July 2023, and that burning and grading activities continued after a stop work order was issued on June 8, 2023.

The court found that the cleared area met the statutory definition of woodland under the by-law and convicted both defendants on both counts.