Simran Singh

The accused, a municipal bus driver, was charged with dangerous driving causing death after her bus rammed into a line of stopped cars at full speed, killing one driver.

The Crown relied on Engine Control Module (ECM) data showing the accelerator was fully depressed and brakes were not applied until seconds after impact.

The defence argued the brakes failed and challenged the ECM's reliability, pointing to a botched police inspection and the unexplained destruction of the bus before trial.

The court admitted the accused's spontaneous utterances at the scene that the brakes failed.

Finding that the Crown failed to exclude the reasonable possibility of mechanical failure, the court acquitted the accused.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal a costs order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As the responding parties did not provide a costs outline, the court made no order as to costs.

The applicant sought a declaration that his Charter right to be tried within a reasonable time under s.11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been breached, and applied for a stay of proceedings under s.24(1).

Although the total delay of 539 days (17.7 months) fell below the presumptive Jordan ceiling of 18 months for Ontario Court of Justice proceedings, the court found a below-the-ceiling breach.

The applicant demonstrated meaningful and sustained efforts to expedite the proceedings and established that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have.

The delay was primarily attributable to the Crown's failure to provide video statements in a timely manner and the court's inability to offer trial dates earlier than 13 months from the swearing of the information.

The charges were stayed.

The accused pleaded guilty to assault causing bodily harm contrary to section 267(b) of the Criminal Code.

The victim sustained serious facial injuries including a 5-inch gash requiring 18 stitches and a 2-inch cut requiring 3 staples, resulting in permanent scarring and nerve damage.

The assault occurred in a restaurant when the accused threw beer and glass bottles at the victim during an altercation.

The court imposed a 12-month custodial sentence followed by 12 months of probation with conditions including anger management and substance abuse counselling, a no-contact order, and a weapons prohibition.

The court rejected the defence proposal for a conditional sentence, finding that denunciation and general deterrence required incarceration despite the accused's difficult background and mental health issues.

The accused, R.M., charged with sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, and mischief, brought an application for a stay of proceedings under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging unreasonable delay.

The total delay was 17 months, which is below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court found that the defence took meaningful and sustained steps to expedite the proceedings and that the case took markedly longer than it reasonably should have, primarily due to the Crown's delay in providing core disclosure (the complainant's video statement).

Despite the delay being below the presumptive ceiling, the court deemed it one of the rare cases warranting a stay, emphasizing the Crown's obligation for prompt disclosure and the "culture of complacency" condemned in R. v. Jordan.

The charges against R.M. were formally stayed.

The offender, J.D., pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual touching of a person under 16 and two counts of breach of probation.

The court addressed the outstanding issue of whether to impose a Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, following recent legislative amendments.

Applying the new s. 490.012(3) of the Criminal Code, which places the onus on the offender to demonstrate that a SOIRA order is unwarranted, the court considered the seriousness of the offences against a vulnerable 13-year-old victim, the offender's lengthy criminal history (though not for sexual offences), and the lack of expert evidence on recidivism risk or specific programming for sexual offending.

The court found the risk of recidivism to be significant and was not convinced that the criteria for exemption were met.

Consequently, a 10-year SOIRA order was imposed.

A custody trial concerning a nine-year-old child, Aiden John Alvin Woods.

The mother sought custody after the father obtained a temporary custody order in August 2018.

The child had experienced significant trauma including a house fire, loss of pets, and the father's incarceration.

The father had a criminal history including domestic assault convictions.

The court found that despite the child's expressed preference to live with his father, the mother's stable home environment, receptiveness to professional advice, and improved parenting abilities made her the appropriate custodian.

The father's rigid personality, resistance to professional recommendations, verbal abuse toward the mother, and unstable living arrangements (a partially constructed trailer) weighed against him.

The court awarded custody to the mother with extended access to the father, subject to conditions regarding the safety of his residence.

This is an addendum to reasons for judgment in a child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court issued an addendum to clarify that the original order dated October 20, 2016 should include a provision granting the maternal grandparents authority to renew the child's passport and to travel with the child, or authorize the child's travel, out of Canada, without notice to or consent of the mother.

The addendum was necessary because this relief, which was discussed during the hearing and in the original reasons, was inadvertently omitted from the order section of the judgment.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to preclude the tort defendants from raising the issue of the identity of the driver and owner of the defendant vehicle based on issue estoppel, following a summary judgment that dismissed the claim against the plaintiff's insurer, Unifund.

Alternatively, the plaintiffs sought to set aside the summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motion to set aside the summary judgment, finding no accidental slip or change in material facts.

The court also dismissed the issue estoppel argument, concluding that the tort defendants, who took no position on the summary judgment motion, were not parties to that proceeding for the purpose of issue estoppel.

The Appellant appealed an Arbitrator's decision finding she had not sustained a catastrophic impairment following a motor vehicle accident.

The Director's Delegate allowed the appeal, finding the Arbitrator erred in law by refusing to rate the Appellant's left upper extremity and right knee impairments because they had not stabilized, and by failing to properly address and rate her claimed sleep disorder and chronic pain.

The preliminary issue of catastrophic impairment was returned to arbitration for a new hearing.