Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-08-14 R. v. Plazas Castillo, 2026 ONCJ 479 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Refusal to comply with breath demand — Elements of offence — Whether detainee understood the demand and immediacy requirement — R. v. Degiorgio applied to s. 320.15(1) and s. 320.27 — Torsney and Breault on forthwith or immediately — Multiple denials of understanding on body‑worn camera — No proof beyond a reasonable doubt that demand was understood — Not guilty<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Language barriers — Translator request — Language may be a barrier to an understanding of the demand — Finding that detainee clearly said translator on body‑worn camera — Formal language of demand and explanations considered — Noisy highway and brief, stressful interaction compounding difficulty — Understanding of immediacy not established — Acquittal entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Police duties — Inquiries into comprehension — Obligation to make reasonable inquiries into extent of English ability — R. v. Burko considered — Officer did not ask detainee’s language or arrange interpreter — No request to explain back understanding in own words — Reliance on apparent understanding insufficient on this record — Charge dismissed
• 2026-08-13 R. v. Bhaskar, 2026 ONCJ 478 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Discharge under s. 730 — Careless storage of a firearm, Criminal Code, s. 86(1) — Whether discharge is in the offender’s best interests and not contrary to the public interest — Individualised sentencing and public confidence considered — Lower end of conduct spectrum found — Comparable discharge precedents reviewed — Absolute discharge granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Absolute versus conditional discharge — Whether an absolute discharge, rather than a conditional discharge, is appropriate — Probation serves no meaningful rehabilitative or supervisory purpose — No monitoring need or public‑safety concern identified — Insight, cooperation, and guilty plea emphasised — Conditional measures unnecessary — Absolute discharge granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Proportionality — Proportionality to gravity of the offence and degree of responsibility — Unloaded shotgun, no accessible ammunition, no misuse or threats — Lawful ownership and compliance insight noted — Presence of younger family members not a significant aggravating factor — Sentence tailored to circumstances — Absolute discharge granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Forfeiture — Whether forfeiture of the shotgun and ammunition should be ordered upon discharge — Offender agreed to forfeiture — This was the only firearm — Permanent loss a meaningful consequence — Public safety and accountability reinforced — Forfeiture ordered
• 2026-08-12 R. v. Scapillati, 2026 ONCJ 474 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Non-consensual distribution of intimate images — Whether a conditional sentence is appropriate under s. 742.1 — Denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives under ss. 718 and 718.2 — Aggravating factors including breach of trust and former intimate partner — Guilty plea and restraint considered — Range reviewed, including R. v. Ha and R. v. Weedon — Conditional sentence refused — Ten-month jail sentence with probation and DNA order imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing orders — SOIRA order — Whether the presumption under s. 490.012(3) is rebutted where Crown proceeds summarily and victim is over 18 — Factors under s. 490.012(4) considered, including nature and seriousness and relationship — Guidance from R. v. Eldon on high threshold — Connection to prevention and investigation established — Impact not grossly disproportionate — SOIRA order for ten years made
• 2026-08-10 R. v. Gowers, 2026 ONCJ 473 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Dangerous offender — Serious personal injury offence — Criminal Code, s. 753(1)(a) — Whether criminal harassment constituted conduct endangering life or safety or likely to inflict severe psychological damage — Victim impact statement weighed under s. 722(8) — Delusional voicemail ranting, no specific targeting found — Threshold not met — Dangerous offender application dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Dangerous offender — Pattern of repetitive or persistent behaviour — Criminal Code, s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) — Whether index offence forms part of a pattern of repetitive or persistent aggressive behaviour — Prior harassment of known partners contrasted with anonymous voicemails — No proof of marked targeting of female victims — Reasonable doubt on pattern — Dangerous offender application dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Intractability and risk — Boutilier applied — Whether conduct is substantially or pathologically intractable and highly likely to reoffend — Treatability through antipsychotic medication and Community Treatment Orders considered — External structure can control risk in community — High untreated risk but controllable with supervision — Dangerous offender application dismissed<br />Procedure — Sentencing — Disputed facts at sentencing — Criminal Code, s. 724(3) — What burden applies where aggravating facts are disputed and earlier plea facts proved erroneous — Crown must prove aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt — Reliance on inaccurate plea narrative refused — Targeting of victim and post‑February messages not proven — Disputed aggravating facts rejected
• 2026-08-07 Lorenzo Cuevas v. Marques, 2026 ONCJ 472 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Whether the mother’s offer attracted subrule 24(12) costs consequences — Offer included full recovery costs term and short acceptance window — Non‑compliance with subrules 18(4) and 24(12) strictly applied — Offer not as good as or better than the result — Costs consequences under rule 24(12) denied<br />Procedure — Costs — Entitlement — Subrule 24(3) presumption of costs to successful party — Who succeeded based on positions at the motion — Mother obtained primary residence and decision‑making responsibility and support — Father did not rebut presumption — Is the mother entitled to her costs as the successful party — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum — Subrule 24(14) factors, unreasonable conduct under subrule 24(7) — Failures to meet timelines and provide disclosure, partial support compliance — Reasonableness, proportionality and ability to pay considered, hourly rate reasonable — Integrity of the justice system and elevated costs discussed — What amount of costs is reasonable — Costs fixed at $10,000 inclusive<br />Procedure — Costs — Enforcement and payment — Ability to pay addressed with instalment structure — Payment of $500 each month ordered starting on a specified date — Requirement to keep costs and child support in good standing — Acceleration if more than 30 days late after start date — Instalment payment terms with acceleration ordered