Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-09-01 R. v. Giansante, 2026 ONCJ 520 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Drinking and driving — Breath testing — Serious collision investigation — Breath sample evidence admitted — Prohibited blood alcohol concentration within two hours of operating a motor vehicle considered under Criminal Code, s. 320.31(4) — Impairment by alcohol not proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Guilty on excess alcohol charge, not guilty on impaired charge<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter — Right to counsel — Detention and suspension — Whether detention occurred earlier than acknowledged — Psychological detention framework applied (R. v. Grant) — Focused and brief sobriety investigation suspends Charter s. 10(b) for grounds under Criminal Code, ss. 320.27 and 320.28 (R. v. Orbanski) — No s. 10(b) breach found for timing<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter — Counsel of choice — Duty counsel — Whether police prematurely foreclosed opportunity to pursue private counsel — Detainee repeatedly expressed desire to consult a private lawyer — Police treated duty counsel as only available option — Police not required to help search for a lawyer, but cannot limit choice — Charter s. 10(b) breach found<br />Evidence — Charter remedies — Exclusion — Breath samples — Whether admitting breath sample evidence would bring administration of justice into disrepute — Charter s. 24(2) and Grant factors applied, McColman cited — Breach found technical and impact limited because prompt legal advice received — Reliability and centrality of evidence emphasised — Evidence admitted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Drinking and driving — Proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Impaired operation and excess alcohol — Whether impairment by alcohol proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Collision and inferential bad driving insufficient without supporting observations — Whether prohibited blood alcohol concentration proven within two hours by breath readings and statutory readback — Guilty on excess alcohol charge, acquitted on impaired charge
• 2026-08-24 R. v. Daley, 2026 ONCJ 511 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Assault causing bodily harm — Whether conditional sentence order is fit rather than jail — Sentencing guided by Criminal Code, ss. 718 to 718.2 — Denunciation and deterrence weighed against rehabilitation and restraint — Conditional sentence order imposed with probation<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing factors — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Unprovoked attack from behind on vulnerable victim — Bodily harm impact treated as aggravating — No criminal record, mental health treatment, housing stability, and “Morris factors” considered — Conditional sentence order imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Conditional sentence — Criminal Code, s. 742.1 — Whether statutory pre-conditions for conditional sentence order are met — Whether offender poses danger to the community that conditions cannot address — R. v. Proulx applied to punitive and rehabilitative objectives — Conditional sentence order granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — DNA and weapons prohibition — Whether DNA sample order is appropriate — Whether weapons prohibition under Criminal Code, s. 110 should be made — Community-based conditions include no contact and distance terms — DNA order and s. 110 prohibition made
• 2026-08-21 R. v. H.A., 2026 ONCJ 486 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional sentence breaches — Appropriate disposition under s. 742.6(9) of the Criminal Code — Graduated range of responses outlined — Whether termination and custody for balance are warranted — Breaches of strict house arrest found deliberate and unexplained — Objectives of denunciation and deterrence prioritized — Conditional sentence order terminated<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Presumption on breach — Whether presumption that the balance be served in custody applies and is rebutted — Proulx and Antaya considered — Integrity of conditional sentence regime and public confidence stressed — Wilful non-compliance with home confinement and GPS conditions — Presumption engaged and not rebutted — Order for committal confirmed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Proportionality — Whether termination disproportionate given seriousness, time served, and objectives — Original offences exceptionally serious with multiple aggravating factors — Time in custody and family separation considered but not determinative — Denunciation and specific and general deterrence necessitated termination — Resulting sanction found not disproportionate — Conditional sentence terminated and balance to be served in custody
• 2026-08-21 R. v. Hanna, 2026 ONCJ 501 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Jordan framework — Calculation of gross and net delay — Does the net delay exceed the 18‑month presumptive ceiling? — Framework from R. v. Jacques‑Taylor and R. v. Vrbanic applied — Deductions for defence‑attributed periods computed under Shaikh and Chung — Net delay 526 days, under ceiling — Application dismissed<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Defence delay — Attribution for CPT and JPT scheduling and resolution track — Whether adjournments to await disclosure and pursue resolution constitute defence delay — Counsel’s postponement of trial scheduling despite approved estimate — Periods for aborted CPT and resolution discussions deducted per Chung — Stay refused<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Discrete exceptional circumstances — Whether re‑arrest and bail proceedings are deductible — Accused re‑arrested on separate charges, bail addressed under Criminal Code ss. 523 and 524 — Event reasonably unforeseeable and unavoidable — Thirty‑day period deducted as discrete exceptional circumstance — Application dismissed<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Under‑the‑ceiling stay — Should a stay be granted despite presumptively reasonable delay? — Requirement for meaningful steps showing a sustained effort to expedite from Jordan — Multiple unnecessary defence‑caused delays undermine claim — Case did not take markedly longer than it should have — Stay refused
• 2026-08-21 R. v. Mercier, 2026 ONCJ 502 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional sentence — CDSA, s. 5(2) — Is a conditional sentence available and appropriate for possession for the purpose of trafficking? — History of non‑compliance and elevated risk to reoffend — Lack of treatment plan and fluid residence — Community sentence found inappropriate — Conditional sentence refused<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Fentanyl trafficking — Appropriate range for mid‑level trafficker — R. v. Parranto, R. v. Lynch, R. v. Loor considered — Aggravating factors included quantity, record, being on release, dangerous cutting agent — Guilty plea mitigating — Moral culpability high — Five‑year penitentiary sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Firearms prohibition and DNA — Should ancillary orders including a s. 109 order, a DNA order, and forfeiture be imposed? — Mid‑level, addicted trafficker with prior record — Trafficking involving dangerous benzodiazepine‑cut fentanyl — Public safety and identification objectives engaged — Ancillary orders made<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Presentence custody credit — How should presentence custody and enhanced credit be applied to the custodial term? — Presentence custody accrued and enhanced credit identified — Net custodial term calculated — Balance of sentence determined as remaining days in custody — Credit applied and balance fixed at 1610 days