P. H. Kowarsky, J.P.

The Crown applied for an order under section 117.05(4) of the Criminal Code to forfeit the Firearms Possession Acquisition Licence of the respondent and to prohibit him from possessing weapons for five years.

The application arose from multiple incidents involving the respondent's alcohol abuse, mental health issues, violent threats against family members, and aggressive behaviour.

The respondent admitted to being an alcoholic and acknowledged his alcohol abuse contributed to violent outbursts.

The court found that it was not desirable in the interests of safety that the respondent possess weapons and ordered forfeiture of the licence and a three-year prohibition on weapon possession, reduced from the maximum five years to allow for treatment and rehabilitation.

The accused was charged with driving while under suspension following a single‑vehicle collision on Highway 400.

At the scene, the driver provided a false name and claimed his licence was at home.

Police later discovered a work-related document on the driver identifying him differently and used it to locate Ministry of Transportation records confirming the accused’s licence was suspended at the time of the offence.

The defence argued the Crown failed to prove identity and that the identification evidence was inadmissible hearsay.

The court rejected the argument, finding the officer’s testimony, Ministry records, and surrounding circumstances provided reliable and admissible identification evidence.

The charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

The applicant brought a motion to stay proceedings for driving while under suspension and failing to properly wear a seatbelt, alleging a breach of his section 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The Crown argued the matter should be assessed under the Morin framework, while the applicant relied on the newly released Jordan framework establishing an 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court cases.

The court found that although the total delay was 17 months and 1 day, the case became significantly more complex mid-proceedings when the Crown discovered the defendant had multiple driver's licences that had been merged by the Ministry of Transportation.

The court held that the time spent on judicial pre-trial conferences constituted inherent time requirements of the case and that the Crown had acted expeditiously throughout.

The motion to stay was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The prosecution alleged the defendant was texting while stopped at a red light.

The defendant testified he was using his cell phone through a Bluetooth hands-free device while keeping both hands on the steering wheel.

The court found the prosecution had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was holding or using the device in a manner prohibited by the statute.

The court determined the defendant was using the device in hands-free mode, which is permitted under section 78.1(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, and acquitted the defendant.

The defendant was charged with four offences under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 relating to violations of the Ontario Fire Code at a residential property.

The defendant requested an adjournment to retain new counsel, which was denied.

The defendant then refused to participate in the trial and stormed out of court.

The trial proceeded ex parte.

The prosecution proved all four charges beyond a reasonable doubt through the testimony of a Fire Prevention Inspector who documented extensive fire code violations including missing smoke alarms, combustible materials in common areas, and lack of testing records.

The defendant was convicted on all counts and sentenced to fines totaling $18,000 payable within six months.

The court emphasized the defendant's pattern of delay, non-compliance, and disrespect for the court and the administration of justice.

The accused was charged with five criminal offences including failing to comply with bail conditions, robbery, and assault.

The Crown sought to revoke his previous bail and sought detention on the secondary ground (public safety).

The accused sought judicial interim release with his father as proposed surety.

The court found that the accused had not met his burden of demonstrating that release conditions could adequately address public safety concerns, particularly given his extensive criminal history including multiple breaches of court orders, violent offences, and the pattern of non-compliance with bail conditions.

The court was not satisfied that the proposed surety could provide adequate supervision given the lack of a meaningful relationship between father and son.

The court ordered detention.

The defendant was charged with operating an unsafe vehicle contrary to section 84 of the Highway Traffic Act after a wheel fell off his vehicle and struck a pedestrian.

The court found this to be a strict liability offence requiring a two-step analysis: first, the Crown must prove the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt; second, if successful, the defendant must establish due diligence on a balance of probabilities.

The Crown proved the defendant was driving an unsafe vehicle when the wheel fell off.

However, the defendant established that he and his wife took all reasonable steps to maintain the vehicle, including regular servicing at a dealership and checking the wheels after hearing a noise.

The defendant was acquitted.

The accused was charged with 11 criminal offences including criminal negligence causing death, human trafficking, and drug trafficking offences arising from a party at his apartment where a sex trade worker died from a drug overdose.

At a judicial interim release hearing, the Crown sought to detain the accused pending trial on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found significant deficiencies in the Crown's case and treated the apparent strength as neutral.

However, the court concluded that the proposed plan of release was insufficient to address concerns regarding the accused's involvement in pimping, prostitution, and drug trafficking activities.

The court ordered the accused held in pre-trial custody.

The accused was charged with break and enter with intent to commit an indictable offence, mischief, and fraud.

The Crown sought detention on primary and secondary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The accused's refugee status had been revoked by the Immigration and Refugee Board based on fingerprint evidence linking him to a criminal record in Colombia.

The accused presented evidence suggesting his identity had been fraudulently used by another person in Colombia.

The court found the accused presented a serious flight risk and that there was a substantial likelihood he would commit further criminal offences if released.

The proposed sureties were found to be unreliable.

The accused was ordered detained in pre-trial custody.

The accused sought judicial interim release (bail) on charges of two counts of robbery armed with a handgun, one count of disguise with intent to commit an indictable offence, and one count of assault with a weapon.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds under section 515(10) of the Criminal Code.

The accused bore the burden of proof due to the firearm allegations under section 515(6)(a)(vii).

The court found the Crown's case to be weak, based primarily on circumstantial evidence including video surveillance, vehicle identification, and clothing similarities.

The court granted bail with conditions, finding the proposed plan of release adequate and that detention would undermine public confidence in the administration of justice.

The defendant was charged with permitting a motor vehicle to be operated without insurance contrary to section 2(1)(b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

A police officer observed the defendant's vehicle being driven by another person, checked the vehicle's registration, and later called an insurance company.

The Crown argued that once ownership and lack of insurance were established, the defendant's permission to drive could be inferred.

The court dismissed the charge, finding that the Crown failed to prove all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly the element that the defendant permitted the driver to operate the vehicle.

The accused, charged with five indictable offences including assault, mischief, threatening death, and breaching bail conditions, sought release on bail.

The Crown sought detention on the secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that the accused had failed to meet his onus under the reverse onus provisions.

The proposed plan of release, involving three sureties and house arrest, was deemed inadequate given the serious nature of the allegations, the accused's apparent disregard for court orders, and the sureties' lack of knowledge regarding the accused's activities and lifestyle.

The court concluded there was a substantial likelihood the accused would commit further criminal offences endangering public safety, particularly that of the vulnerable complainant.

The accused, a 23-year-old international student from China, sought judicial interim release on eight criminal charges including criminal harassment, assault, sexual assault, break and enter with intent, unlawful confinement, and possession of a weapon.

The accused had previously been released on bail with no-contact conditions but allegedly breached those conditions by communicating with the complainant after his father departed Canada.

The court imposed publication bans under sections 486.4 and 517(1) of the Criminal Code.

The court found that while the presumption of innocence and constitutional rights to reasonable bail are fundamental, the secondary ground for detention—protection of the public and the complainant—was not adequately addressed by the proposed release plan.

The court denied bail and ordered the accused detained.

A judicial interim release hearing for an 18-year-old accused charged with multiple offences including break and enter with intent, possession of property obtained by crime, and failure to comply with bail conditions.

The accused had an extensive criminal history dating back to 2010, including weapons offences, break and enters, and trafficking-related charges.

The Crown's primary concern was public safety under the secondary ground.

The court found the Crown had a very strong case based on eyewitness identification, GPS tracking, and recovered stolen property.

Although the accused's mother offered to act as surety with additional financial pledges and the defence proposed a mental health support plan, the court determined the proposed release plan was inadequate to address public safety concerns given the accused's escalating pattern of criminal conduct, history of non-compliance with court orders, and substance abuse issues.

The accused appeared before the court seeking judicial interim release (bail) on 27 charges, including break and enter, theft of motor vehicles, and offences committed in association with a criminal organization.

The Crown opposed release, citing concerns under the secondary ground (public safety).

The accused proposed his uncle and aunt as sureties with a $10,000 pledge and a release plan involving residence with the sureties and a curfew.

The court found that although the sureties were credible and willing, the accused's conduct following his previous release on bail in July 2014—during which he continued criminal activity and stored stolen goods in his home—demonstrated he would not comply with bail conditions.

The court denied bail and ordered detention.

A judicial interim release hearing for a 17-year-old charged with aggravated assault, robbery while armed with a firearm, discharging a firearm with intent to wound, possession of a dangerous weapon, and failing to comply with a peace bond.

The Crown sought detention on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found jurisdiction to consider detention as the accused was charged with serious offences.

The court rejected the proposed release plan with two sureties (the accused's father and aunt), finding that the sureties lacked adequate knowledge of the accused's criminal history, showed insufficient commitment to supervision, and that no conditions could adequately protect the public.

The court ordered the accused detained in custody pending trial.

The accused was charged with criminal negligence causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, and unlawfully causing bodily harm arising from unauthorized buttocks augmentation procedures performed using PMMA injections.

The Crown sought detention on primary and secondary grounds, arguing risk of flight and danger to the community.

The accused proposed two sureties with pledges totalling $11,000.

The court found the Crown's case strong, the accused's conduct reckless and dangerous, and the proposed release plan inadequate due to the sureties' unwillingness to provide residential supervision and their lack of commitment.

Detention was ordered.

The defendant, a registered vehicle owner, was charged with permitting a motor vehicle to be operated without insurance contrary to section 2(1)(b) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The defendant's brother was driving the defendant's Mazda 3 when stopped by police on January 12, 2012.

The insurance policy had been cancelled effective January 5, 2012, but the defendant claimed he did not receive the cancellation notice because it was sent to his former address in Ajax after he had moved to Toronto.

The court found the actus reus proven but accepted the defendant's due diligence defence based on a reasonable mistake of fact, resulting in an acquittal.

A judicial interim release hearing for two accused charged with robbery while armed with a firearm, forcible confinement, possession of prohibited weapons, and possession of property obtained by crime, as well as possession of opium poppy including heroin.

The Crown opposed release on secondary and tertiary grounds.

The court found that both accused had reversed onus due to prior weapons convictions and current bail conditions.

Despite proposed sureties and electronic monitoring, the court determined the release plans were insufficient given the serious nature of the charges, the apparent strength of the Crown's case based on recent possession doctrine, and the extensive criminal histories of both accused.

Both accused were detained.

The defendant corporation was charged with three offences under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for violations discovered at a residential building following a fire on April 3, 2009.

The charges involved: (1) providing devices on required doors that could prevent them from being readily opened from the inside; (2) failing to maintain the fire alarm system in operating condition; and (3) failing to maintain smoke alarms in operating condition.

The prosecution proved the actus reus of all three charges.

The defendant raised a due diligence defence, arguing it had taken reasonable care.

The court found the defendant's fire prevention plan was inadequate, haphazard, and reactive rather than preventive, with poor coordination and no regular monitoring.

The defendant failed to meet its burden of proving due diligence and was convicted on all three charges.