P.T. O’Marra

The young person pleaded guilty to the sexual assault of his adopted sister, which occurred over a six-year period.

The Crown sought a six-month custodial sentence, while the defence sought probation.

The court noted that while custodial sentences are the norm for serious sexual assaults under the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the young person's cognitive difficulties, including Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, constituted exceptional circumstances.

Given his low risk to re-offend, lack of prior record, and rehabilitative steps, the court imposed a non-custodial sentence of two years' probation, along with a DNA order and a weapons prohibition.

The accused, who is deaf, brought a Charter application to exclude firearms and drugs seized from his residence during the execution of a search warrant.

He argued the warrant was based on stale information and that police breached his s. 10(b) right to counsel by failing to accommodate his hearing impairment.

The court found the search warrant was validly issued.

However, the court found a s. 10(b) breach because police failed to provide appropriate technology or assistance to allow the accused to effectively communicate with duty counsel, despite knowing of his disability.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2) due to the serious, systemic nature of the police failure to accommodate hearing-impaired detainees.

The applicant, who pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, sought an exemption from the mandatory SOIRA registry under section 24(1) of the Charter, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in R. v. Ndhlovu.

The court ordered a psychiatric assessment, which indicated the applicant had pedophilic and hebephilic interests.

The court found the applicant failed to establish that he was not at an increased risk of committing a future sex offence.

The application was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to register for 10 years.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography discovered on a desktop computer and DVDs seized during a search of his residence.

The court considered numerous aggravating factors including the size and graphic nature of the collection, balanced against mitigating circumstances such as the accused’s guilty plea, lack of criminal record, lengthy delay while on restrictive bail conditions, personal hardships, and Charter breaches identified in earlier proceedings.

Applying the Supreme Court’s guidance emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for sexual offences against children, the court held that a conditional discharge would be contrary to the public interest.

Nevertheless, due to the unique procedural history and mitigating factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence of six months to be served in the community as a conditional sentence order.

Ancillary orders including DNA, internet‑related prohibitions, and forfeiture were granted, and constitutional issues relating to SOIRA registration following Ndhlovu were considered.

The applicant, charged with impaired driving offences, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging an infringement of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay from the laying of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 1675 days.

After deducting 774 days of defence-caused delay and 210 days of exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the remaining net delay was 691 days (22.71 months).

As this exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice, the court found the delay unreasonable and granted a stay of proceedings.

The accused was charged with impaired operation and excess blood alcohol after his vehicle was found stuck in a ditch.

The accused claimed he was not the driver and only occupied the driver's seat to try to extricate the vehicle while his friend pushed.

The court rejected the accused's testimony as untruthful, finding he was the driver based on his initial statements to police.

Alternatively, the court found the accused had care or control of the vehicle by occupying the driver's seat with the intention of setting it in motion, thereby failing to rebut the statutory presumption of operation.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The accused was charged with impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over 80.

The police officer stopped the accused's vehicle based on a 'hunch' that the occupants were involved in recent car break-ins.

The Crown conceded that the stop was an arbitrary detention in violation of s. 9 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court found the Charter breach was serious and had a significant impact on the accused's rights.

The court excluded the breathalyzer readings and evidence of impairment under s. 24(2) of the Charter, resulting in an acquittal on both charges.

The accused was charged with failing or refusing to comply with a breath demand after being stopped for careless driving.

At the police station, the accused made six attempts to provide a breath sample into an Intoxilyzer 8000C but failed to provide a suitable sample, claiming she had chronic bronchitis and the flu.

The court found that the accused was provided a reasonable opportunity to provide a sample but intentionally failed to do so by faking her attempts.

The court rejected her medical condition as a reasonable excuse, finding her testimony evasive and inconsistent with the video evidence.

A finding of guilt was entered.

The offender was convicted of sexually assaulting and sexually exploiting his girlfriend's two young daughters over a three-year period.

The Crown sought a three-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence argued for a conditional sentence based on the offender's lack of a criminal record and positive background.

The court found that a conditional sentence would not adequately address the principles of denunciation and deterrence given the breach of trust and the profound impact on the victims.

The court imposed a sentence of two years less a day incarceration, consistent with the sentence imposed at the original trial.

The youthful offender pleaded guilty to dangerous driving causing bodily harm after crossing the center line and striking an oncoming vehicle head-on, causing significant injuries to two elderly passengers.

The Crown sought six to nine months of incarceration, while the defence sought a 90-day intermittent sentence.

The court weighed the aggravating factors of prolonged dangerous driving and severe victim impact against the mitigating factors of a guilty plea, lack of prior record, and the offender's mental health struggles.

The court imposed a 90-day intermittent jail sentence and a four-year driving prohibition.

The accused was stopped for a traffic violation and subsequently arrested for impaired driving.

At trial, the accused argued that his Charter rights under ss. 8, 10(a), and 10(b) were violated, seeking exclusion of the breath test results under s. 24(2).

The court found no breach of ss. 8 or 10(a), but concluded that a 7-minute delay in providing rights to counsel violated s. 10(b).

Applying the Grant framework, the court declined to exclude the evidence, finding the breach minimal and the evidence reliable.

The court found the accused guilty of both impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol, entering a conviction on the impaired driving count and a judicial stay on the excess blood alcohol count.