Ontario Court of Justice - Summary Conviction Offences - SCJ

The accused, a former Canadian Senator, was charged with sexual assault and criminal harassment of his executive assistant between September 2013 and March 2014.

The complainant alleged repeated unwanted sexual touching at the office and during work trips, as well as controlling and threatening conduct that caused her to fear for her psychological safety.

The accused denied all allegations.

The trial involved extensive testimony from the complainant, the accused, his wife, and corroborating witnesses.

The court found significant credibility and reliability issues with the complainant's evidence, including contradictions with witness testimony and inconsistencies regarding key events.

The accused's evidence was found to be straightforward and credible.

The court applied the W.D. framework and found that the evidence raised reasonable doubts regarding all counts.

The accused was charged with three counts of sexual assault and one count each of assault with a weapon and assault causing bodily harm, alleged to have occurred between March 1, 2018 and January 31, 2020, against his spouse.

The charges involved allegations of forced vaginal intercourse, non-consensual anal intercourse on two occasions, assault with a jar of Vaseline, and assault causing a broken toe.

The trial proceeded on the basis of conflicting testimony between the complainant and the accused, with credibility being the central issue.

The court found the accused not guilty on all five counts, citing concerns regarding the credibility and reliability of the complainant's evidence, inconsistencies in her testimony, and the timing of her allegations to police.

The court ruled on whether the defences of self-defence and provocation should be put to the jury in a case where two sisters admitted to killing their elderly mother.

The accused claimed they acted in self-defence based on a lifetime of physical and verbal abuse, which escalated in the week preceding the killing.

The court found an air of reality to the self-defence defence for both accused, considering the chronic abuse, the accused's cultural background, their mental health conditions, and the modified objective test applicable to self-defence.

The court rejected the provocation defence due to insufficient specificity regarding the triggering act and the lack of evidence that the accused acted "on the sudden."

This endorsement concerns a detention review hearing under section 525 of the Criminal Code for the accused, Loic Aurel Simeu, who sought release on bail pending the completion of his sentencing.

The court declined to release Mr. Simeu, finding his continued detention justified under section 515(10) CCC.

The decision was based on three factors: an unsatisfactory bail plan due to insufficient information about the proposed surety, the availability of alternative measures to address health and safety concerns in custody (e.g., transfer to another facility), and the assessment that there was no risk of the accused serving more pre-sentence custody than a fit sentence would entail, considering potential maximum credit and 'Duncan credit' for harsh conditions.

The applicant sought a detention review, arguing material changes in circumstances and errors by prior courts regarding his release plan and Gladue factors.

The court dismissed the application, finding no material change in circumstances, upholding the prior decisions that continued detention was justified on secondary and tertiary grounds due to the applicant's history of re-offending, particularly driving while disqualified, and the proposed release plan's inability to mitigate public safety risk.

The court also addressed the application of Gladue factors, concluding that while systemic factors were present, the proposed plan did not sufficiently address the risk to public safety.

The accused, charged with two counts of second-degree murder, applied for judicial interim release (bail).

The Crown presented exceptionally strong evidence, including DNA, cell phone records placing the accused near the crime scene and a pawnshop where victims' items were sold, and testimony from five witnesses alleging confessions or suspicious inquiries.

The proposed sureties, the accused's mother and a friend, were deemed weak due to lack of positive influence, lack of knowledge about the accused's history, and questionable commitment to surety duties.

The court found that electronic monitoring could not compensate for the weak sureties and dismissed the application on both secondary and tertiary grounds, confirming the accused's continued detention pending trial.

The accused sought release from custody under s. 525 of the Criminal Code, having been detained on serious drug and firearm charges.

He presented a new release plan with multiple sureties, electronic monitoring, and medical evidence of hypertension, which heightened his risk from COVID-19.

The court considered the new plan and the COVID-19 risk but ultimately dismissed the application, finding that the accused's continued detention was necessary on secondary grounds due to a substantial likelihood of re-offending, particularly given his alleged breaches of prior release conditions and continued involvement in the drug trade.

Jerome Green sought a bail review after being detained on secondary and tertiary grounds for firearm and fentanyl trafficking charges.

The application considered the length of pretrial detention, the availability of electronic monitoring, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic as material changes in circumstances.

The court found that the extended pretrial custody, coupled with the heightened risk of COVID-19 in correctional facilities, significantly altered the bail analysis.

Despite the seriousness of the allegations and previous breaches of court orders, the court concluded that a reasonable member of the public would not have concerns about the administration of justice if Green were released under a robust supervision plan including GPS monitoring.

Bail was granted with specific conditions.

P.R. was charged with break and enter, sexual assault, and assault with a weapon following an incident where he mistakenly entered a residence while intoxicated.

The accused claimed mistaken entry and self-defence.

The court acquitted P.R. of break and enter and sexual assault, finding reasonable doubt regarding his intent due to intoxication and inconsistencies in witness testimony.

However, P.R. was convicted of assault with a weapon, as his use of a flashlight against the homeowner was deemed disproportionate and not a reasonable act of self-defence given the homeowner's right to remove an intruder.

Curtis Elliott applied for a second bail review under s. 520 of the Criminal Code, facing 33 charges related to firearms trafficking.

The application was dismissed.

The court found no material change in circumstances to displace the need for detention on secondary grounds, despite arguments regarding new sureties, electronic monitoring, treatment availability, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the passage of time.

The court acknowledged the pandemic's impact and the principle of proportionality in detention but concluded that the scheduled trial dates mitigated the risk of disproportionate detention, outweighing the substantial public safety risks.

The applicant, charged with first-degree murder, sought release on bail.

The court considered the strength of the Crown's case, the applicant's background (including a new drug trafficking charge while in custody), the reliability of the proposed surety (the applicant's father, who was untruthful in testimony), the release plan, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court found the applicant failed to satisfy the onus on the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, concluding that detention was necessary for public safety and to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.

Z.A., in custody for 11 months awaiting trial on criminal harassment and probation breach charges, sought a review of his detention under s. 525 of the Criminal Code.

The Crown opposed release on secondary grounds, citing Z.A.'s history of harassing conduct and related convictions.

The court considered the COVID-19 pandemic and the passage of time but found a substantial likelihood of Z.A. committing further offences, given his persistent pattern of harassment despite warnings and previous convictions.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant sought a de novo review of his detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, having previously consented to detention.

Facing charges including assault with a weapon, uttering threats, and robbery, and being in breach of a conditional sentence, the onus was on the applicant to justify release.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, noting the applicant's lengthy criminal record and his provision of a materially false affidavit.

Despite the proposed surety and the risks associated with COVID-19 in correctional facilities, the court found the applicant failed to persuade it that he should be released, citing his disrespect for the law and substantial likelihood of breaching conditions.

The application for release was dismissed, and the detention order was maintained.

C.O., charged with serious offences including sexual assault and breach of probation, applied for a bail review after consenting to detention.

The application was based on new evidence, including a proposed surety and the risks posed by the COVID-19 pandemic in correctional facilities.

The Crown opposed release due to C.O.'s lengthy criminal record and public safety concerns.

The court found material changes in circumstances, including the new surety plan and the pandemic's impact on detention conditions and trial delays.

Despite C.O.'s significant criminal history, the court was satisfied that the proposed surety plan, offering 24/7 supervision, sufficiently attenuated public safety risks.

The court also considered the COVID-19 pandemic as a factor tipping the balance in favour of release, vacating the detention order and releasing C.O. on a $10,000 recognizance with specific conditions.

The applicant, J.R., charged with serious firearms and drug offences, sought a bail review under s. 525 of the Criminal Code after being detained for over 90 days.

The court considered the secondary and tertiary grounds for detention, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the passage of time.

The court found no substantial likelihood of the applicant committing further offences given the proposed electronic monitoring and sureties.

On the tertiary ground, the court emphasized the public health implications of incarceration during the pandemic, relying on expert evidence, and noted the Crown's unreasonable delay in disclosure.

The court concluded that continued detention was not justified and ordered the applicant's release on strict conditions.

The applicant sought a review of a detention order under s. 520(1) of the Criminal Code, citing two material changes in circumstances: a more stringent release plan including GPS monitoring and a higher surety pledge, and the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

The Crown conceded the pandemic constituted a material change.

The court found that the applicant's detention was not necessary on either the secondary or tertiary grounds, considering the lack of a criminal record, the enhanced bail plan, and the risks posed by the pandemic in a detention centre.

The court ordered the applicant's release on a $50,000 recognizance with three sureties and strict conditions, including GPS ankle monitoring and a residence requirement.

The applicant sought a variation of his release order to change his residence from a supervised facility to his mother's home, citing his acceptance into a university program as a material change in circumstances.

The court acknowledged the university acceptance as a material change, requiring a fresh analysis of bail conditions.

However, the application was dismissed on secondary and tertiary grounds, as the proposed supervision plan was deemed insufficient to manage the applicant's risk of re-offending or interfering with justice, given his history of impulsivity, past breaches of no-contact orders, and manipulative behaviour, particularly concerning the safety of the complainant and children.

The Crown applied under section 521 of the Criminal Code to vacate a Judicial Interim Release Order and substitute a Detention Order for the accused.

The court found that the Justice of the Peace erred by giving excessive weight to the accused's lack of sureties and insufficient weight to his extensive criminal record, particularly concerning primary and secondary grounds for detention.

The Justice of the Peace also failed to adequately analyze the accused's record, his drug problem, and the unsuitability of the proposed living arrangements.

The court granted the Crown's application, ordering the immediate detention of the accused.

The applicant, Keon Chisholm, sought a bail review under Section 520 of the Criminal Code to vary his house arrest conditions.

He requested permission to have contact with his co-accused brother and to attend school or pursue employment opportunities.

The court found no material and relevant change in circumstances since the initial bail hearing to warrant a variation of the order, dismissing the application.

The accused, Aaron Kennedy, brought a further bail review application after previous applications were dismissed.

The application was based on alleged material changes in circumstances, including trial delay, new evidence undermining the complainant's credibility (extortion attempts, phone records inconsistent with alleged confinement), and a new proposed release plan incorporating regular police reporting and ankle monitoring.

The court found a material change in circumstances but ultimately dismissed the application, determining that detention remained necessary on the secondary ground due to Kennedy's extensive criminal record, history of breaching court orders, and committing an assault while in custody.

The proposed release plan was deemed insufficient to mitigate the substantial likelihood of re-offending.