Criminal and Quasi-Criminal Law - SCJ

The gaoler brought a detention review under s.525 of the Criminal Code for the accused, who was detained on drug charges.

The trial had already commenced and was nearing judgment.

The court dismissed the review, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s.525 because the trial had started, and any bail application at that stage must be made to the trial judge under s.523(2)(a) of the Criminal Code.

The Crown brought a Dangerous Offender application following the offender's convictions for multiple violent offences against his intimate partner, including assault causing bodily harm, choking, and forcible confinement.

The court reviewed the offender's extensive criminal record, which included 134 convictions, many involving violence against domestic partners and strangers.

Relying on psychiatric evidence and risk assessments indicating a very high risk of violent reoffending and intractable behaviour, the court found that the offender met the criteria for a Dangerous Offender designation under s. 753(1)(a) of the Criminal Code.

Concluding that a determinate sentence followed by a Long-Term Supervision Order would not adequately protect the public, the court imposed an indeterminate sentence.

Détermination de la peine pour une agression sexuelle commise contre la fille adulte, mais vulnérable sur le plan intellectuel, de la conjointe de fait du contrevenant.

Le tribunal a mis l’accent sur la dénonciation et la dissuasion en matière d’infractions sexuelles visant une victime vulnérable, tout en tenant compte des limites cognitives, de l’absence d’antécédents judiciaires et de la situation personnelle difficile du contrevenant.

La cour a conclu qu’une peine carcérale était nécessaire et a imposé 12 mois d’emprisonnement, en plus du crédit pour détention préventive, suivis de 24 mois de probation et d’ordonnances accessoires.

The Crown appealed a trial judge's decision to stay drinking and driving charges against the respondent due to a breach of her right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The appeal judge found that the trial judge erred in failing to attribute certain scheduling delays—specifically the time taken to schedule a Crown pre-trial and a judicial pre-trial—to the defence.

When these periods of defence delay were deducted from the total delay, the remaining time fell below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in Jordan.

The appeal was allowed, the stay of proceedings was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The Crown brought an application under section 475 of the Criminal Code to proceed with the accused's trial in absentia.

The accused, facing a charge of importing cocaine, had previously raised pseudolaw jurisdictional arguments which were dismissed.

On the day of trial, the accused refused to be arraigned, stormed out of the courtroom, and could not be located by police.

The court found that the accused had absconded for the purpose of frustrating the proceedings and that the trial had already commenced with the hearing of pretrial motions.

The application was granted, and the trial was ordered to proceed in absentia.

The accused was tried in absentia for importing cocaine after 1.8 kilograms of the drug were found concealed in professionally packaged food items in her luggage upon her return from Jamaica.

The Crown proved the actus reus beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court rejected the possibility that the accused was a blind courier, inferring her knowledge of the drugs from their high street value and the sophisticated method of concealment.

The accused was found guilty as charged.

The accused, a racialized single mother with a history of socio-economic disadvantage, was convicted by a jury of importing 1,390 grams of cocaine.

The Crown sought a sentence of four to five years imprisonment, while the defence sought a conditional sentence.

The court considered the aggravating factors of the quantity and nature of the drug, and the mitigating factors including the accused's lack of a criminal record, compliance with bail, and systemic racial and socio-economic disadvantages.

The court found that a conditional sentence was inappropriate but deviated below the established range of four to six years due to the systemic forces that constrained the accused's choices, sentencing her to three years imprisonment.

The accused was convicted of possession of 15 kilograms of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking following a sting operation involving the US-DEA and RCMP.

Prior to sentencing, the accused brought an application alleging a breach of his s. 11(b) Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding that the failure to bring it prior to trial was fatal and that the net delay was below the 30-month presumptive ceiling.

The court sentenced the accused to 8 years' imprisonment, emphasizing denunciation and deterrence given the large quantity and high purity of the cocaine.

The applicant, an Indigenous man charged with second-degree murder, brought a pre-trial motion challenging the constitutionality of recent Criminal Code amendments (Bill C-75) that abolished peremptory challenges and altered the challenge for cause procedure.

The Superior Court of Justice held that the repeal of peremptory challenges violated the applicant's rights under sections 7, 11(d), and 11(f) of the Charter by denying him a fair trial with an independent and impartial jury, and that the repeal was overbroad.

The court struck down the repeal of the peremptory challenge provisions but upheld the amendments to the challenge for cause procedure.

The Crown and defence were permitted to exercise peremptory challenges as if the provision had not been repealed.

The applicant, charged with manslaughter, brought a pre-trial motion challenging the constitutional validity of section 4(b) of the Juries Act (Ontario).

The applicant argued that this provincial legislation, which disqualifies individuals convicted of an indictable offence from jury service, creates an operational conflict with section 638(1)(c) of the Criminal Code, which allows for challenges for cause only for those sentenced to imprisonment exceeding twelve months.

The applicant contended that the provincial law unduly narrows the jury pool and infringes on federal jurisdiction over criminal procedure.

The Crown argued that the provincial legislation is a valid exercise of power over the administration of justice and does not conflict with or frustrate the purpose of the federal law.

The court dismissed the application, finding no operational conflict or frustration of federal purpose, as the provincial and federal laws govern different aspects of jury selection and can coexist.

The offender was convicted by a jury of importing 11.5 kilograms of cocaine into Canada.

The Crown sought a sentence of 11 years imprisonment, while the defence sought 6 years.

The court weighed aggravating factors, including the large quantity of drugs and financial motive, against mitigating factors such as the offender's lack of a criminal record and status as a courier.

The court sentenced the offender to 9 years imprisonment, along with a weapons prohibition and a DNA order.

During a murder trial, the defence applied for a mistrial based on alleged misrepresentations and misstatements made by the Crown in its closing address to the jury.

The defence argued that the Crown's comments regarding DNA evidence, witness immunity, and the accused's testimony fatally wounded the trial process.

The court reviewed the eight alleged errors and concluded that while some statements were inaccurate or lacked an evidentiary basis, they did not individually or cumulatively constitute a fatal wounding of the trial process.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the errors could be adequately addressed through limiting instructions to the jury.

The accused, a strip club dancer, was charged with aggravated assault after punching an intoxicated patron outside the club.

The patron fell and suffered internal head injuries and facial bruising.

The court rejected the accused's claims of self-defence and consensual fight, finding he was the aggressor.

However, the court found reasonable doubt as to whether the punch caused the patron's fall and subsequent internal head injuries, given the patron's extreme intoxication and the uneven pavement.

The court found the accused guilty of the lesser included offence of assault causing bodily harm based on the facial injuries sustained directly from the punch.

The appellant appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a demand to provide a breath sample.

He argued the trial judge made several errors, including shifting the burden of proof on a section 8 Charter application, misapprehending evidence regarding the officer's grounds for the demand, misapplying the W.(D.) test for credibility, relying on hearsay, and failing to prove he operated a vehicle within the preceding three hours.

The Summary Conviction Appeal Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors, properly assessed credibility, and reasonably concluded that the officer had the requisite grounds to make the demand.

The accused, facing multiple charges including assault and sexual assault, elected to be tried by a judge and jury and obtained an order under section 530 of the Criminal Code for an English-speaking jury.

The accused subsequently brought an application to challenge prospective jurors for cause regarding their English language competency pursuant to section 638(1)(f) of the Code.

The court dismissed the application, holding that the statutory provisions do not create an automatic right to challenge jurors on linguistic competency without empirical evidence demonstrating a need for independent evaluation beyond the standard pre-screening mechanisms.

The Crown prosecuted historic allegations of sexual misconduct said to have occurred during family gatherings over several years.

The court reviewed the complainants' accounts, delayed disclosure evidence, and defence evidence denying wrongdoing and challenging the plausibility of key incidents in the physical setting described.

Applying the criminal standard of proof and the framework governing cases where the accused testifies, the court found material contradictions, reliability concerns, and significant improbabilities in the Crown's narrative.

The evidence did not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and acquittals were entered on all counts.

The applicant sought a declaratory judgment affirming the Superior Court's jurisdiction under section 24(1) of the Charter to order post-conviction disclosure for individuals claiming wrongful conviction.

The respondent, the Attorney General of Ontario, brought a motion to strike the application, arguing the applicant lacked standing, the application was premature, and it failed to meet the section 7 Charter test.

The court dismissed the motion to strike, finding that the respondent had not met the high threshold of demonstrating it was plain, obvious, and beyond doubt that the application could not succeed.

The appellant brought a motion seeking a stay of a 12-month driving prohibition pending the appeal of her conviction for having care or control of a motor vehicle while impaired.

The court previously found that the prohibition caused hardship.

However, after reviewing the trial record, the court concluded that the appeal lacked merit, as the trial judge's findings regarding impairment were reasonable and supported by the evidence.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

The accused pleaded guilty to 28 fraud and related charges after operating a Ponzi-style scheme under the guise of film production investments, defrauding 26 victims of $296,250.

The funds were largely used to support the accused's lavish lifestyle.

The court weighed the significant breach of trust, the number of victims, and the global amount against the accused's guilty plea and lack of prior record.

The accused was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, 3 years' probation, ordered to pay full restitution, and subjected to a 5-year prohibition under s. 380.2 of the Criminal Code.

The accused pleaded guilty to failing to provide the necessaries of life and criminal negligence causing bodily harm in relation to her young child.

The child was discovered severely malnourished, developmentally delayed, and confined to a room covered in feces.

The court considered the accused's mental health issues, including depression and drug dependency, as well as the abusive control exerted by her partner.

Emphasizing denunciation and deterrence for the prolonged and severe neglect, the court sentenced the accused to 12 months of incarceration followed by 24 months of probation.