Riun Shandler

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the Crown's application for an assessment of criminal responsibility regarding Deeva John, who had entered guilty pleas to multiple assault-related charges.

The court found that although Ms. John suffers from Cluster B personality disorder traits, there were no reasonable grounds to doubt her capacity under section 16 of the Criminal Code to appreciate the nature and quality of her conduct or to know that it was wrong at the time of the offences.

The decision emphasized that the Crown failed to establish the lower threshold of "reasonable grounds to doubt" criminal responsibility due to mental disorder, as the evidence showed Ms. John’s conduct was purposeful and responsive to her environment rather than indicative of incapacity.

The accused, A.S., brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Charter, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).

The total delay was 40 months and 15 days.

The court applied the Jordan framework, determining the presumptive ceiling was 30 months due to the matter having been in Superior Court.

After subtracting defence-caused delay (3 months and 27 days), the net delay was 36 months and 18 days.

The court found that the remaining delay of 33 months and 13 days (after deducting 3 months and 5 days for COVID-19 impact) exceeded the presumptive ceiling and was not justified by exceptional circumstances, including the Crown's decision to add indictable charges and then consent to re-election without a waiver.

The application for a stay of proceedings was granted.

The defendant brought a motion to deny standing to the complainant's counsel at a section 278.94 hearing, arguing that a prior Superior Court declaration of unconstitutionality in R. v. Reddick was binding on the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court rejected this argument, holding that ordinary principles of stare decisis apply to section 52 declarations and that a Superior Court declaration does not bind courts of coordinate jurisdiction.

The court found that the defendant must file a proper Notice of Constitutional Question to challenge the constitutionality of the section 278.94 procedure.

The motion was dismissed and the complainant's counsel was granted standing.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while her blood alcohol level exceeded the legal limit contrary to s. 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

She was stopped for an expired validation tag, and the officer detected alcohol and administered an approved screening device test which registered a fail.

The accused was arrested and provided breath samples at the police station showing 160 mg of alcohol per 100 ml of blood.

The defence challenged whether the breath samples were taken as soon as practicable and whether the officer could rely on the ASD result.

The court found the Crown proved the samples were taken as soon as practicable and that the officer had reasonable grounds to rely on the ASD result.

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with failing to comply with a demand for a breath sample into an approved screening device contrary to section 254(5) of the Criminal Code, arising from a R.I.D.E. check stop.

The central issue was whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally failed to comply with the breath demand.

The court found that the accused was cooperative throughout the process, made nine attempts to provide a sample within approximately four minutes, and was given minimal initial instruction and demonstration.

The court concluded that the rapid escalation of the situation, conflicting instructions from two officers, lack of clear feedback on why samples were unsuccessful, and the accused's repeated requests to try again after arrest created a reasonable doubt as to whether the failure was willful or intentional.

The accused was acquitted.

The accused was charged with driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit contrary to section 253(1)(b) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown's breath samples were taken outside the two-hour window required for statutory presumptions to apply.

The defence advanced a Carter defence based on the accused's testimony regarding his alcohol consumption, supported by expert toxicology evidence suggesting his BAC would have been below the legal limit.

The court rejected the defence evidence as unreliable and inconsistent with the expert evidence regarding the accuracy of the breathalyzer readings.

The accused was found guilty.