G. Paul Renwick

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.

This decision addresses the voluntariness of a statement made by the defendant, G.C., to police following his arrest for dangerous operation causing death related to a motor vehicle collision.

The court carefully analyzed the evidence from police officers and the circumstances surrounding the statement, including the delay in custody, the timing of informing the defendant of the fatality, and the failure to advise him of his imminent release.

Applying Supreme Court of Canada principles on voluntariness and credibility, the judge found a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant's statement was made with free will, rendering it inadmissible at trial.

This decision addresses a Charter application in a drink-driving and resisting arrest case, focusing on alleged violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court analyzed whether the police had reasonable and probable grounds for arrest and breath demand, the lawfulness of police presence on private property under the implied license doctrine, and the adequacy and timeliness of informing the accused of the reasons for detention.

The judge found no Charter breaches, concluding the police acted reasonably and lawfully, and dismissed the application to exclude breath evidence.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered a drink-driving case involving Keith Maiato, focusing on alleged Charter violations under sections 8, 9, and 10(a).

The court analyzed whether the police had reasonable grounds for arrest and whether the Defendant was properly informed of the reasons for detention.

The court found no breach of s. 10(a) or s. 9, concluding that the arrest was lawful and supported by reasonable grounds.

However, the court found the Defendant’s admissions to the Qualified Technician were not voluntary due to the manner in which the breath demand was explained, leading to exclusion of those admissions.

Without the Defendant’s admissions, the prosecution failed to prove identity and impairment beyond a reasonable doubt, resulting in acquittal.

The defendant, Ronita Lal, was charged with having an excess blood alcohol concentration.

She brought Charter applications (ss. 7, 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b), 11(d)) to exclude evidence, specifically the results of a roadside breath screening.

The court found that the police had an implied license and statutory authority to enter private property to investigate.

While a s. 8 Charter violation (unlawful search of the vehicle) and a minimal s. 10(b) Charter violation (brief delay in providing right to counsel post-arrest) occurred, the court applied the Grant test under s. 24(2) of the Charter.

It concluded that the seriousness of the breaches was modest, the impact on the defendant's Charter interests was slight and momentary, and society's interest in adjudicating the case on its merits, given the reliable and crucial evidence, outweighed the breaches.

The application to exclude evidence was dismissed.

During a criminal trial for assault, the prosecutor brought an application under s. 9(2) of the Canada Evidence Act to cross-examine their own witness (the complainant) on a prior inconsistent statement.

The defence argued the statement was unreliable due to the complainant's state at the time (medicated, alcohol consumed, sleep-deprived, emotional).

The court found patent inconsistencies between the trial testimony and the prior statement, inferred a possible motive for feigned memory loss, and determined that despite the complainant's condition, the statement was not so unreliable as to create unfairness.

The application was granted, allowing the prosecution to conduct a limited cross-examination.

The offender, M.A., was found guilty after a three-day trial of assaulting his then-wife, involving striking her, covering her mouth, and holding her neck, causing difficulty breathing.

The prosecution sought six months imprisonment, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered aggravating factors (intimate partner violence, presence of child, complainant's recent surgery, significant emotional harm) and mitigating factors (first offender, 43 years old, sole caregiver for four children, employed, volunteer work, cognitive behavioural therapy, favourable pre-sentence report, low risk to re-offend).

The court imposed a 12-month conditional sentence, followed by 18 months probation, along with a DNA order and a five-year weapons prohibition, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence while recognizing the offender's rehabilitative efforts and good character.

The defendant, S.K., facing sexual assault and sexual exploitation charges, brought a second application for the presiding judge to recuse due to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The defendant, self-represented, presented evidence including witness testimony and his own perceptions, arguing that the judge had shown bias against him.

The judge, G.P. Renwick, acknowledged several factors contributing to a reasonable apprehension of bias, including a former counsel's comment about the judge's perceived pro-Crown tendency, the judge's failure to adequately explain procedural matters to the self-represented defendant, and the defendant's genuine belief of bias.

The judge granted the application, recusing himself to ensure the appearance of justice and a fair trial.

The prosecutor sought a material witness warrant under s. 705 of the Criminal Code for Niloshan Selvakumanran, also known as Neal Kumar, who failed to attend court despite being subpoenaed.

The defendant opposed, questioning the identity of the witness and the reliability of the evidence.

The court found that the subpoena was properly served, the witness's identity was sufficiently established, and the witness possessed material evidence.

Consequently, the court issued a material witness warrant for the arrest of the witness.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving and having an excess blood alcohol concentration.

He challenged the admissibility of breath readings, alleging Charter violations under ss. 8 (unreasonable search) and 10(b) (right to counsel).

The court found the defendant was the driver beyond a reasonable doubt.

While breaches of ss. 8 (untimely breath demand) and 10(b) (delayed access to counsel) were established, the court applied the R. v. Grant test and determined that admitting the breath sample results would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

The defendant was found guilty of impaired operation.

The defendant, N.R., faced five counts arising from allegations of intimate partner violence, including a death threat, sexual assault, and three counts of breaching a bail order.

The court found the complainant's testimony unreliable due to inconsistencies, poor memory, and a history of breaching court orders.

The defendant's video-taped statement to police admitted to maintaining contact and cohabiting with the complainant, contrary to his bail conditions.

Applying principles from R. v. W.(D.) and R. v. Kruk regarding credibility and reliability, the court found N.R. guilty of the three bail breach counts but acquitted him of the death threat and sexual assault charges due to reasonable doubt arising from the complainant's unreliable testimony and the absence of corroborating evidence.

The defendant, Eldan Krcic, faced charges of theft, assault, and assault with a weapon arising from allegations of intimate partner violence.

The trial involved testimony from the complainant and the defendant, and photographic evidence of injuries.

The court assessed witness credibility and reliability, applying the principles from R. v. W.(D.).

While the complainant's testimony had some credibility issues and the defendant's testimony was largely untruthful, the court found that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt due to residual doubts about the complainant's testimony and the unauthenticated nature of the photographic evidence.

All remaining charges were dismissed.

The defendant brought a s. 11(b) Charter application for unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 788 days (25 months and 25 days).

The court deducted 219 days attributable to defence delay, resulting in a net delay of 569 days (18.7 months), which exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials under R. v. Jordan.

The Crown did not justify the delay.

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

The offender, Troy Matthews, pleaded guilty to unauthorized possession of a firearm and possession contrary to a prohibition order.

The firearm and ammunition were found hidden in his home, where his three young children resided.

The prosecution sought a 24-month global sentence, while the offender sought 18 months (net 15 months after credit for pre-trial custody and systemic racism).

The court considered aggravating factors, including a lengthy criminal record and unsafe storage of the firearm, and mitigating factors, such as a guilty plea, remorse, strong family support, and the impact of anti-Black racism.

The court granted enhanced credit for harsh pre-trial custody conditions and the experience of racism.

A global sentence of 21 months imprisonment was imposed (18 months for firearm possession, 3 months consecutive for breach of prohibition), reduced by 2 months for restraint/totality and 5 months for pre-trial custody/racism, resulting in a net 14-month provincial reformatory sentence.

Ancillary orders included a lifetime weapons prohibition, a 20-year prohibition for other firearms/ammunition, a DNA order, and forfeiture of seized items.

The Applicant, F.W., facing a sexual assault charge, brought a s. 276 application to introduce "other sexual activity" (OSA) evidence of the complainant, M.M., related to DNA evidence, capacity to consent, and inconsistencies in her statement.

The court, applying the s. 276 regime, balanced the probative value against the prejudice.

The court allowed limited cross-examination of the complainant regarding sexual activity at the nightclub/vicinity on the night of the incident and permitted examination of Crown witness S.R. and the Applicant regarding their sexual activity with the complainant, finding significant probative value for the defence's issues of consent and DNA explanation, which outweighed the prejudice.

The defendant was charged with assaulting his wife.

He admitted to a non-consensual application of force by putting his hand on her mouth to calm her down, which he conceded might have caused bleeding.

The complainant testified that the defendant slapped her, held her on the bed, sat on her, beat her face and head, and grabbed her neck, causing difficulty breathing and possible loss of consciousness.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of both the complainant and the defendant, considering inconsistencies and admissions.

The court rejected the defendant's explanation for scratches found on his body, concluding that these injuries were inflicted by the complainant in self-defense while she was being choked.

The defendant was found guilty of assault.

The offender, Shane Springer, was sentenced following a trial where he was found to have caused significant head injuries to the complainant with a bag.

The Crown sought six months imprisonment and 24 months probation, while the offender sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered sentencing principles, including proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as aggravating factors (unprovoked attack, weapon use, lack of remorse, ongoing harm to victim) and mitigating factors (first offender, refugee claimant status, community contributions, positive pre-sentence report).

The court rejected a conditional sentence due to the severity of the assault and lack of remorse, imposing six months imprisonment and two years probation, noting the potential for deportation.

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, was charged with eight counts including assault, forcible confinement, and sexual assault against the complainant, S.K. The prosecution proceeded by indictment, and the defendant elected a trial in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court assessed the credibility and reliability of the complainant's testimony, considering circumstantial evidence and the absence of forensic evidence.

The court found the complainant's testimony to be entirely credible, plausible, and unshaken by cross-examination, rejecting the defendant's theories of fabrication.

The defendant was found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on all eight counts.

The Crown applied under sections 714.1 and 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code for the complainant to testify by video link from New Brunswick in a criminal trial involving charges of assault, unlawful confinement, and sexual assault.

The respondent opposed the application, arguing unfairness, diminished solemnity, potential hindrance to cross-examination, and insufficient evidence regarding the complainant's inconvenience or medical issues.

The court considered eight factors from R. v. Young, including the impact on cross-examination, the integrity of the examination site, witness travel distance, convenience, and cost.

The application was dismissed, as the court found that potential issues with cross-examination and the appearance of fairness, coupled with a lack of precise evidentiary basis for the complainant's inconvenience, tipped the balance against granting the order.

The defendant, Ranjit Singh, brought a s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay in his criminal proceedings for assault, sexual assault, and forcible confinement.

The total delay was 24 months and 4 days.

The court calculated defence delay, finding 206 days attributable to the defendant, resulting in a net delay of 17.4 months, which is below the 18-month Jordan ceiling for provincial courts.

The court also found that the defendant failed to demonstrate meaningful steps to expedite the proceedings, thus failing the second branch of the Jordan test for delays below the ceiling.

The application was dismissed.