Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2025-07-28 R. v. Akbari, 2025 ONCJ 398 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Hate-motivated threats — Sentencing — Accused convicted of uttering threats to bomb synagogues and kill Jewish people — Hate-motivated bias as a statutorily aggravating factor under section 718.2(a)(i) of the Criminal Code — Does the gravity of the offence and the harm caused to the Jewish community justify a custodial sentence? — Denunciation and deterrence prioritized in sentencing for hate-motivated offences<br />Criminal procedure — Kienapple principle — Multiple convictions for the same criminal act — Accused convicted of two counts of uttering threats arising from the same conversation — Should a conditional stay be entered on one count? — Distinct offences with separate targets justify two findings of guilt<br />Rights and freedoms — Hate crimes — Impact on targeted communities — Hate-motivated threats against Jewish people and institutions — Community Impact Statements highlighting fear, trauma, and harm to social cohesion — Do hate-motivated threats undermine the safety and pluralism of Canadian society? — Sentencing principles emphasize denunciation and deterrence to protect vulnerable communities
• 2025-07-25 R. v. Glasman, 2025 ONCJ 397 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Arrest — Approved screening device — Officer failed to identify the specific model of the approved screening device used during the roadside test — Does the absence of a specific model number undermine the reliability of the test result and the grounds for arrest? — Officer's testimony and precedent from R. v. Gundy upheld the reliability of the device — No Charter breach established under sections 8 and 9<br />Evidence — Approved screening device — Reliability of evidence — Officer testified that the device was an approved screening device used across the province — Defence argued lack of specific model number undermined reliability — Court found no credible evidence to challenge the officer's assertion — Precedent from R. v. Gundy applied to uphold the reliability of the evidence<br />Rights and freedoms — Arrest — Grounds for arrest — Accused arrested for impaired driving rather than excess blood alcohol — Defence argued the arrest was unlawful under the Charter — Court found the officer had reasonable grounds for arrest based on the approved screening device result and the accused's condition — Arrest deemed lawful under sections 8 and 9 of the Charter<br />Rights and freedoms — Right to counsel — Section 10(b) of the Charter — Officer's comments about the inevitability of providing breath samples regardless of legal consultation — Defence argued comments interfered with the accused's right to counsel — Court found no breach as the accused was promptly provided access to duty counsel and spoke with counsel for ten minutes — No impact on the quality of access to counsel<br />Constitution — Charter remedies — Section 24(2) of the Charter — Defence sought exclusion of evidence based on alleged Charter breaches — Court found no breaches of sections 8, 9, or 10(b) — Evidence admitted, and the charge of operation over 80 mg of alcohol proven beyond a reasonable doubt
• 2025-07-24 R. v. R.N., 2025 ONCJ 394 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Reasonable doubt — Presumption of innocence — Accused charged with gross indecency and sexual assault under the Young Offenders Act — Whether conflicting testimony of the accused and complainant left the court in a state of reasonable doubt — Framework from R. v. W.(D.) applied — Crown's burden of proof not met — Accused acquitted<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — Complainant testified to historical sexual abuse occurring over 40 years ago — Inconsistencies in dates and events attributed to trauma — Whether complainant's testimony was credible and reliable enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — Court found complainant credible but identified reliability concerns<br />Evidence — Alibi — Accused presented evidence of foster care placement during part of the alleged offence period — Whether foster care placement diminished the opportunity to commit the offences — Alibi not determinative but raised reasonable doubt — Catholic Children's Aid Society records considered<br />Evidence — Inconsistencies — Complainant's difficulty recalling dates and events — Whether inconsistencies in testimony affected reliability of evidence — Court found inconsistencies did not undermine core allegations but contributed to reasonable doubt<br />Evidence — Emotional testimony — Accused emotionally denied allegations and described personal challenges, including hyperhidrosis and transient living conditions — Whether emotional testimony impacted credibility assessment — Court found accused's testimony plausible and consistent with evidence, contributing to reasonable doubt
• 2025-07-22 R. v. Hunte-Green, 2025 ONCJ 391 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Indecent act — Public masturbation — Accused masturbated under clothing in a public elevator — Whether masturbating under one’s clothes in a public elevator constitutes an indecent act — Test for indecency under R. v. Labaye, 2005 SCC 80 — Harm to autonomy and liberty of others — Conduct incompatible with the proper functioning of society — Accused found guilty of committing an indecent act<br />Criminal procedure — Proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Accused charged with masturbating in a public elevator — Crown required to prove all essential elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt — Evidence of complainant deemed honest and reliable — Video evidence corroborated complainant’s observations — Trial judge satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused masturbated under his clothing<br />Statutory interpretation — Indecent act — Interpretation of “indecent act” under the Criminal Code — Whether exposure of genitals is required to establish an indecent act — Application of R. v. Labaye, 2005 SCC 80 — Conduct causing harm to autonomy and liberty of others — Sexualized nature of conduct in confined space — Accused’s actions met the threshold for indecency<br />Evidence — Witness credibility — Complainant’s testimony — Complainant observed accused masturbating under clothing in a public elevator — Testimony supported by video evidence showing proximity and opportunity for observation — Trial judge found complainant credible and reliable — Evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
• 2025-07-22 R. v. A.C., 2025 ONCJ 393 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Sexual interference — Offender pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual interference under section 151 of the Criminal Code — Offences committed against a minor over several years — What is the appropriate sentence considering the gravity of the offences and the principles of sentencing? — Sentence of six years imposed — Emphasis on denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.01, 718.2<br />Criminal procedure — Ancillary orders — DNA order, section 161 order, section 109 order, and SOIRA order imposed — Offender convicted of sexual offences against a minor — Should ancillary orders be imposed to protect the public and ensure compliance with statutory requirements? — Ancillary orders granted, including a lifetime SOIRA order — Criminal Code, ss. 109, 161, 487.051<br />Evidence — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Offender's lack of remorse and failure to address pedophilia — Victim's vulnerability and significant impact of offences — How do aggravating and mitigating factors influence sentencing? — Aggravating factors, including abuse of trust and prolonged harm, outweighed limited mitigating factors — Criminal Code, s. 718.2<br />Statutory interpretation — Sentencing precedents — Relevance of R. v. Friesen and other case law — Supreme Court guidance on increasing sentences for child sexual offences — How should precedent cases and statutory principles guide sentencing? — Mid-to-upper single-digit penitentiary terms appropriate for sexual offences against children — Criminal Code, s. 718.2(b); R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9