Yaroslav Obouhov

The offender pleaded guilty to dangerous operation of a conveyance and failure to stop after an accident.

He drove into a parked vehicle, fled at high speed while weaving dangerously through traffic, and struck a second parked vehicle.

The Crown sought jail time followed by probation and a driving prohibition.

The defence sought a conditional sentence of imprisonment.

The court imposed a custodial sentence, finding that the gravity of the offences, the intentional and cavalier nature of the driving conduct, the offender's criminal and driving record, and the prevalence of dangerous driving incidents in the community warranted incarceration rather than a conditional sentence, despite the offender's youth and rehabilitative potential.

This is a summary conviction appeal from Jason Robertson’s conviction for refusal to provide a breath sample under s. 320.15 of the Criminal Code.

The appellant argued that the demand for a breath sample was not made “immediately” as required, and that unusual circumstances did not excuse any delay.

The court found that the demand was made promptly after ensuring the appellant’s health and safety following a serious accident, and that any delay was justified by the circumstances.

The appeal was dismissed.

The Ontario Court of Justice considered whether a section 10(b) Charter breach occurred when police allowed the accused to speak to a paralegal instead of a lawyer after arrest for impaired driving and over 80 mg alcohol in blood.

The court found a breach because a paralegal is not authorized to provide legal advice in impaired driving cases, and police should have known this.

Despite the breach, applying the three-part Grant test, the court declined to exclude the breath sample evidence, finding the breach was of moderate seriousness, the impact on the accused’s rights was moderate, and society’s interest in reliable evidence favored inclusion.

The accused was found guilty on the over 80 mg charge.

The defendant, Alan Smith, was charged with impaired driving, driving with over 80 mg of alcohol, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle following a single-vehicle collision.

The defence challenged identity, impairment, and dangerous operation.

The court found the Crown proved identity beyond a reasonable doubt, impairment based on observed indicia and the collision, and dangerous operation due to erratic, high-speed lane changes in precipitation leading to a severe collision.

Mr. Smith was found guilty of all three counts, with the impaired driving charge stayed under the Kienapple principle.

The defendant, G.C., was charged with sexual assault and sexual interference involving his then-girlfriend's 15-year-old daughter.

The trial in the Ontario Court of Justice involved conflicting testimony from the complainant and her mother (the defendant's common-law partner).

The court found the complainant credible but had lingering reliability concerns due to inconsistencies and a possible motive for fabrication.

The mother's testimony was largely unbelievable but confirmed an apology from the defendant and an admission of possibly touching the complainant's "bum or something." Despite a strong suspicion of guilt, the court found that the evidence, when considered holistically, left a reasonable doubt, leading to an acquittal.

The Crown appealed the conditional sentences imposed on the respondent for trafficking in cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, and possession of proceeds of crime, arguing errors in principle.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred by imposing a conditional sentence after determining a three-year penitentiary term was fit, and by using pre-trial custody credits to make a conditional sentence available, contrary to R. v. Fice.

While upholding the three-year global sentence as fit due to mitigating Gladue factors, plea, remorse, and rehabilitation, the Court substituted a 16-month prison sentence but stayed its operation, allowing the probation order to remain.

The accused, Neetahwis Shognosh-Diaz, was found guilty of sexually assaulting the complainant, who was impaired by alcohol and unable to consent, involving vaginal and anal penetration.

The court considered sentencing submissions from both the Crown, who sought 36-48 months' custody, and the defence, who proposed an 18-month conditional sentence.

The court acknowledged the accused's youth, lack of prior record, and Gladue factors, but emphasized the gravity of the offence, the victim's vulnerability, and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

Ultimately, the court imposed a custodial sentence of two years less a day, followed by a 36-month probationary term, along with ancillary orders including a weapons prohibition, DNA order, and SOIRA registration.

The appellant, D.G., appealed his conviction for sexual assault.

The trial judge had found significant credibility issues with the complainant's evidence, including inconsistencies and missing journals, but still convicted.

The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's reasons inadequate for failing to explain how he could believe the complainant's evidence despite these identified credibility problems.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and a new trial ordered.

The defendant, Antonio Canono, was convicted by a jury of operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood causing death and dangerous driving causing death.

The court determined the material facts for sentencing, finding that Canono was impaired and speeding significantly (105 km/h in a 50 km/h zone) at the time of the collision, which resulted in the death of his friend.

The court considered aggravating factors (impairment, excessive speeding, tragic outcome) and mitigating factors (no prior criminal or driving record, hardworking, family support, remorse).

The Crown sought 6-7 years, while the Defence sought 3 years.

The court imposed a concurrent sentence of 5 years' imprisonment on each count, along with a 5-year driving prohibition post-imprisonment and a non-communication order.

The Crown appealed the acquittal of the respondent, Syed Rizvi, on a charge of excess blood alcohol, arguing the trial judge erred in finding a s. 10(b) Charter breach (right to counsel) and in excluding breath samples.

The Crown also sought a "bright line rule" for police wait times for counsel of choice in impaired driving cases.

The Superior Court of Justice declined to set a rigid timeline, emphasizing that the "reasonable opportunity" for counsel is fact and context-specific.

The court found that the trial judge erred in concluding a s. 10(b) breach, as the respondent chose to speak with duty counsel after police made reasonable efforts to contact his chosen lawyers, and this choice did not constitute a waiver requiring a specific warning.

The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, a conviction entered, and the matter remitted for sentencing.

The accused, Ryan Schuster, was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol level over 80 mg.

The defence alleged breaches of the accused's Charter rights under sections 9 and 10(b), and sought exclusion of breath readings.

The court summarily dismissed the section 9 breach allegation due to non-compliance with the Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice regarding factual pleading.

The court found no breaches of section 10(b), ruling that police were not obligated to advise the accused he could wait for specific counsel before speaking with duty counsel, nor were they required to re-offer counsel options after he expressed dissatisfaction with duty counsel, given the reasonable steps taken by the police.

Even if a breach occurred, the court stated it would not exclude the evidence under section 24(2) of the Charter.

On the impaired operation charge, the court found the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt based on the totality of circumstantial evidence, including driving behaviour, physical indicia, and belligerent conduct.

The offender, J.B., was found guilty after trial of sexual assault and sexual interference against J.M., the daughter of a friend and neighbor.

The offences occurred over approximately two years, when J.M. was between 10 and 12 years old, involving multiple incidents of sexual touching and vaginal penetration.

The court considered aggravating factors including the victim's young age, the extended duration and high degree of physical interference, the offender's breach of a father-like position of trust, and the profound impact on the victim.

Mitigating factors included no prior criminal record and community support.

Gladue principles were considered but found to have a weak causal link to the offender's criminality.

The Crown sought a sentence of 10 to 12 years, while the defence sought 5 years.

The court imposed a 9-year penitentiary sentence for sexual interference, with the sexual assault count stayed under the Kienapple principle.

Ancillary orders included a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act order, a 10-year weapons prohibition, a DNA order, a no-contact order with the complainant and her mother while in custody, and a lifetime s. 161 order.

This is a sentencing decision following convictions for impaired driving and sexual assault.

The offender, Hurshed Tursunov, had a prior impaired driving conviction.

The sexual assault involved a paramedic providing medical assistance in an ambulance.

The court considered aggravating factors, including the prior conviction, the collision, flight from the scene, lack of insight, and the vulnerability of the victim.

Mitigating factors included the financial impact of incarceration on the offender's family and the conditions of serving time during the pandemic.

The court balanced principles of denunciation, deterrence, proportionality, and restraint, imposing a total custodial sentence of 75 days, along with a probation order, driving prohibition, weapons prohibition, Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, and DNA order.

Renata Migdalski was charged with impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration over 80 mg.

The trial addressed two main issues: an alleged violation of her section 10(b) Charter right to counsel and whether the Crown proved impairment beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court found no Charter breach, concluding that police acted diligently and the accused did not express dissatisfaction with duty counsel.

Based on consistent witness observations and video evidence, the court found the accused guilty of impaired operation.

The over 80 charge was conditionally stayed.

The accused, Heath Johnston, pleaded guilty to trafficking cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, and possession of proceeds of crime, following his arrest with significant quantities of drugs and cash.

A Gladue Report and Pre-Sentence Report were prepared, highlighting his Indigenous background, intergenerational trauma, and personal struggles with addiction exacerbated by pandemic-related job loss.

The Crown sought a 6-year penitentiary sentence, while the defence proposed 3.5 years.

The court applied Gladue principles, emphasizing the remedial purpose of s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code to address the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in custody.

Despite the seriousness of the offences and the need for denunciation and deterrence, the court found that a restorative approach through a conditional sentence was appropriate given the strong Gladue factors and the accused's rehabilitation efforts.

The defendant, Hurshed Tursunov, was charged with impaired driving and sexual assault.

The charges arose from a collision with a TTC bus, subsequent observations of intoxication by a civilian witness and paramedics, and an alleged sexual assault on a paramedic.

The court found the defendant guilty on both counts, relying on the civilian witness's observations and the defendant's admission of being drunk, corroborated by professional witnesses' observations and a booking video.

For the sexual assault, the court found the actus reus and mens rea proven beyond a reasonable doubt, noting the defendant's actions and subsequent demeanor.

This ruling concerns a voir dire to determine the competence of a proposed Uzbek language interpreter for the defendant's criminal trial on charges of impaired driving and sexual assault.

The defendant required an Uzbek interpreter, and previous attempts to qualify one were unsuccessful.

The court assessed the proposed interpreter, Mr. Bakhtier Shakhnazarov, against the criteria for competent interpretation, including proficiency, type of interpretation, level of need, length and type of proceeding, complexity, and demonstrated ability.

Despite the defendant's counsel raising concerns about formal accreditation and criminal trial experience, the court found Mr. Shakhnazarov competent, emphasizing that accreditation is not dispositive and his extensive experience and education in legal contexts demonstrated the necessary proficiency.

The accused, a tow truck driver, was charged with assault with a weapon, threatening bodily harm, and dangerous driving following an altercation with another tow truck driver.

The Crown proceeded summarily.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible, supported by video and physical evidence, and rejected the accused's self-defence claim, finding his actions were motivated by vengeance rather than self-protection.

The accused was found guilty of assault with a weapon and threatening bodily harm, but not guilty of dangerous driving as the driving conduct did not meet the criminal threshold.

The defendant, Logan Cloer, was tried on charges of impaired operation of a conveyance and operating a conveyance with a blood alcohol level exceeding the legal limit.

He sought a stay of proceedings under sections 7 and 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that the arresting officer assaulted him after his arrest.

The court found that the defendant's Charter rights were violated due to the officer's impulsive and inappropriate use of force.

However, the court declined to grant a stay of proceedings, deeming it a disproportionate remedy given the minor injury and the officer's conduct not being as egregious as in other cited cases.

Instead, the court imposed a reduced sentence, finding the defendant guilty of the offences, fining him one dollar, and ordering a one-year driving prohibition.

The applicant mother brought an urgent motion to vary a temporary order regarding the respondent father's access to their two children.

The father had been exercising access supervised by his parents, but was recently charged with criminal harassment and repeatedly breached court orders by discussing prohibited topics with the children.

The Children's Aid Society verified concerns about the children's exposure to conflict and the grandparents' inability to supervise the father.

The court granted the motion, suspending in-person access until supervised access facilities reopen, and ordering daily videocalls.