Tanya Hewitt

The Ontario Review Board conducted an annual review of the accused, who was found not criminally responsible for aggravated assault.

The accused suffers from schizoaffective disorder with catatonic features.

While the accused has made significant progress, remained medication compliant, and utilized privileges without incident, the Board found he continues to pose a significant threat to public safety.

The Board ordered the continuation of his Detention Order, rather than a Conditional Discharge, to ensure the hospital retains authority over his community accommodation and can intervene promptly if he shows subtle signs of decompensation.

Additional privileges, including community living and an international travel pass, were granted.

The court dismissed a motion under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario) by three siblings (Normand Quesnel, Rachelle Paquette, and Marc Quesnel) to dismiss a defamation action brought by their brother, Gilles Quesnel.

The moving parties argued the action was a SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation).

The court found that while some of the impugned statements related to matters of public interest (communications to authorities and professionals), others (communications to friends and family) did not.

The court held that the action had substantial merit, that the moving parties had no valid defence, and that the public interest in allowing the action to proceed outweighed the public interest in protecting the impugned expressions.

The applicants sought to assess their former solicitor's accounts.

The solicitor moved to exclude accounts preceding May 4, 2021, relying on s. 4(1) of the Solicitors Act, arguing they were outside the 12-month limitation period.

The applicants argued "special circumstances" warranted assessment of all accounts.

The court dismissed the solicitor's motion, finding special circumstances existed, including the ongoing nature of the matters, the interim nature of the accounts, the clients' lack of knowledge about challenging accounts, and the absence of detail in some bills.

This is a sentencing decision for a young offender, Q.M., who pleaded guilty to sexual interference contrary to s. 151 of the Criminal Code.

The court considered the paramount sentencing principles of denunciation and deterrence for child sexual offences, as mandated by s. 718.01 of the Criminal Code, while also balancing rehabilitation and restraint given the offender's youth and first-offender status.

The court reviewed the factual background, victim impact statement, and offender's background, including psychiatric assessments suggesting pedophilic disorder and a low to moderate risk of recidivism.

Despite the seriousness of the offence, the court imposed a 9-month custodial sentence, followed by 3 years of probation, along with various ancillary orders, finding it to be a proportionate sentence given the significant mitigating factors, including the guilty plea and willingness to engage in therapy.

The accused, Seleshi Robi, was charged with impaired operation of a motor vehicle.

The defence argued involuntary intoxication, claiming the accused was unaware that the traditional Ethiopian drink, Tej, consumed at a church celebration, contained alcohol.

The defence also attributed erratic driving and physical observations to extreme fatigue and back pain.

The court found the accused's testimony regarding his lack of knowledge about Tej's alcohol content and his English comprehension to be incredible and unreliable, given his statements to police and the nature of the drink.

The court concluded that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a motor vehicle was impaired by alcohol, dismissing the defence of involuntary intoxication and finding the accused guilty.

The accused was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance.

At trial, the accused brought a Charter application alleging his s. 10(b) right to counsel was breached because he did not understand English well enough to comprehend his rights, and the police failed to provide an Amharic interpreter.

The court found that while the arresting officer did not breach the accused's rights, the breath technician breached s. 10(b) by failing to investigate the availability of an interpreter after the accused requested a translation.

However, the court declined to exclude the arresting officer's pre-arrest observations under s. 24(2), finding the connection between the subsequent breach and the prior observations was too tenuous and remote.

The Charter application to exclude the observations was dismissed.

The accused was charged with making child pornography, possession of child pornography, and voyeurism after his common-law partner discovered a surreptitiously recorded video of her eight-year-old daughter in the shower on his Instagram account.

Upon being confronted, the accused deleted the video and subsequently damaged his phone.

The court rejected the accused's testimony, finding he intentionally destroyed evidence.

The court concluded the accused had exclusive opportunity to commit the offences and found him guilty on all counts.

The accused, a Registered Massage Therapist, was charged with two counts of sexual assault against female clients at a spa.

The Crown proved that the accused deliberately touched the breasts of both complainants without consent during massage treatments, despite being trained in the requirement to obtain explicit consent for breast massage.

The accused claimed the contact was accidental and therapeutic in nature.

The court rejected this defence, finding the actions were deliberate, lacked any therapeutic justification, and had a sexual character.

The accused was convicted on both counts.

The applicant brought a motion to stay charges of impaired driving and "over 80" on the basis of a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable period of time under Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charges were laid on June 24, 2014, with the information sworn on July 9, 2014.

The trial was scheduled for one day but was not completed until April 13, 2016, with judgment delivery delayed until February 7, 2017.

The total delay was 26 months, or 24 months after deducting defence delay.

The court found that the net delay of 24 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R. v. Jordan and that the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to rebut the presumption.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.

This is an annual sentence review under section 94(2) of the Youth Criminal Justice Act for a young person convicted of robbery following a home invasion while armed with an offensive weapon.

The young person was originally sentenced to 15 months custody (450 days open custody followed by 225 days community supervision).

On review, the young person sought early release to participate in a pre-apprenticeship employment and training program commencing March 1, 2017.

The court found the young person had made excellent progress in custody, completed high school, and demonstrated positive behavioral changes.

However, the court declined to release the young person at that time, finding that the interests of society were not served by early release given the serious and violent nature of the offence.

The court encouraged flexibility in reintegration leave conditions to permit program participation and scheduled an optional review for June 1, 2017, indicating a strong likelihood of release if positive progress continued.

This is a costs decision following a six-day family law trial concerning custody and parenting time of a seven-year-old child.

The respondent mother sought costs of $75,000 (or alternatively $61,249.74) against the applicant father.

The court found the mother was substantially more successful on the primary issues of custody and parenting schedule, entitling her to costs on a partial indemnity basis.

However, the court reduced the award to reflect the father's successes on certain issues and the mother's own conduct deficiencies, including her failure to engage in meaningful settlement discussions and her service of non-severable settlement offers containing extraneous terms.

The father's conduct, while unreasonable and cost-generating, did not amount to bad faith.

The court awarded costs of $37,901.40, payable by March 31, 2016, with post-judgment interest at 2% per annum.

The defendant was charged with impaired operation contrary to section 253(a) of the Criminal Code and refuse to provide a breath sample contrary to section 254(5).

Following a traffic stop for excessive speeding, the investigating officer requested the defendant perform a physical coordination test without formal demand under section 254(2) of the Criminal Code and without proper training.

The court found breaches of sections 8 and 9 of the Charter.

Evidence from the roadside physical test and observations during its administration were excluded.

However, the defendant's statements refusing the breath sample at the police station were admitted as they lacked sufficient nexus to the Charter breach.

The defendant was acquitted of impaired operation but convicted of refuse breath sample.

The accused was charged with obstructing police and eight driving-related offences arising from a traffic stop on February 2, 2014.

The accused raised numerous pseudo-legal arguments based on a denial of state authority, claiming he was subject only to divine law.

The court dismissed these arguments by adopting the reasoning from Meads v. Meads regarding organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments (O.P.C.A.).

The court found the accused guilty of all charges, including obstructing police by driving away from the scene in an uninsured, unregistered vehicle despite lawful police direction to remain at the scene.

The accused was charged with driving while suspended, making unreasonable noise, failing to identify, and assaulting and obstructing a peace officer following a traffic stop.

The court found that the officers failed to strictly comply with the preconditions for a warrantless arrest under s. 33(3) of the Highway Traffic Act, rendering the arrest unlawful and acquitting the accused of the criminal charges and failure to identify.

However, based on uncontradicted evidence, the accused was found guilty of driving while suspended and making unreasonable noise.