Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-11-03 R. v. Rahman, 2026 ONCJ 657 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Provincial Offences Act appeal — Dormant appeals — Abandonment notice — Appeal commenced without Appellant’s knowledge — Conviction consequences delayed or suppressed by dormant appeal — Interests of justice analysis in appeal record — Appeal allowed and acquittal entered<br />Evidence — Fraudulent misrepresentation — Proof of retainer and deception — Bank documents and email exchanges — Clear, cogent, and convincing evidence required — Whether Appellant was deliberately misled by purported representative — Objective indicia supporting allegation wherever reasonably available — Fraudulent misrepresentation found<br />Procedure — Ineffective assistance framework — Hill and Zhen “ends of justice” test — Affidavit and notice requirements — Whether framework readily applies where representative is unknown, unlicensed, or non-responsive — Need for tailored protocols in fraudulent misrepresentation allegations — Limits of presuming wrongdoing emphasised — Flexible approach endorsed<br />Procedure — Pleas — Miscarriage of justice — Unsanctioned guilty plea — Plea entered without prior instructions or consent — No evidence Appellant was advised guilty plea entered — Transcript unavailable due to expired retention period — Whether conviction can stand on this record — Conviction cannot stand<br />Procedure — Remedies on appeal — New trial or acquittal — Provincial Offences Act, s. 138(1) — Passage of time prejudicing retrial — Whether new trial would prejudice prosecution and defence — Whether acquittal necessary to address miscarriage of justice — Ends of justice considered — Acquittal entered
• 2026-11-02 Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T.S., 2026 ONCJ 655 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Child protection — Status review access — Variation of final access order — CYFSA, ss. 104, 113 — What is the legal test for interim variation of a final access order in a status review — Requirement to show change in circumstances and best interests of the child — Status quo treated as existing order — Motion dismissed<br />Child protection — Best interests of the child — Access and risk proportionality — Whether the Father met the test to vary the Final Access Order on a temporary basis — Children’s views and wishes considered with age and maturity — Inconsistent attendance, adult conflict, and emotional harm assessed — Change in circumstances not established on the evidence — Motion dismissed<br />Evidence — Affidavit evidence — Hearsay, opinion, argument — Whether the Affidavit of a law clerk employed by Father’s counsel is admissible — Rule 14(19), Family Law Rules considered — Opinions on ultimate issue and predictions about future events rejected — Factual observations attributed to counsel inadmissible — Affidavit held inadmissible<br />Child protection — Access supervision and conditions — Society discretion to suspend — Whether access should remain at the discretion of the Society pending psychiatric assessment and demonstrated consistency — Unpredictable and inconsistent visits found emotionally harmful — Stability of caregiving arrangement prioritised — Access reviewable upon meaningful engagement in mental health supports — Status quo continued, access at Society’s discretion, motion dismissed
• 2026-11-02 Riddolls v. Barrett, 2026 ONCJ 651 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Parenting orders — Motion to change — Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 29 — Gordon v. Goertz two-stage test — Whether there was a material change in circumstances affecting best interests — Parenting concerns found substantial and material — Threshold met and variation justified — Order varied<br />Family — Parenting time — Best interests of child — Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 24 — Whether parenting time should be in mother’s discretion or supervised by a professional parenting time supervisor — Safety, security and well-being given primary consideration — Discretionary and supervised parenting time refused — Graduated unsupervised parenting chosen — Variation ordered<br />Family — Parenting time schedule — Variation requested by parent — Whether schedule should be changed for work commitments and whether make-up parenting time should be ordered — Weekday visits not ordered due to work schedule — Holiday parenting time terminated as premature — Make-up weekends sought in closing rejected — Request dismissed<br />Family — Parenting time conditions — Safety-focused restrictions — Whether restrictive terms are required to address safety concerns — Indoor and geographic limits imposed initially — Requirement to inform location and give notice of inability to attend — Prohibition on physical discipline — Virtual parenting time ordered — Graduated structure imposed — Parenting time ordered with conditions
• 2026-11-02 R. v. Amuzati, 2026 ONCJ 654 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Offences against the person — Failure to stop at the scene of an accident, Criminal Code, s. 320.16(3) — Whether the accused’s vehicle was the vehicle involved — Surveillance video and collision damage compared — Debris physically matched to mirror, reflector and plastic components — Forensic paint and fibre transfer evidence considered — Guilty verdict<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Identification — Driver identity — Whether the accused was the driver at the relevant time — Accused called police stating he believed he struck the pedestrian — Officer notes accepted as reliable — Videotaped police statement placing accused driving during timeframe — No evidence of any other driver — Guilty verdict<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Mental element — Knowledge of bodily harm — Whether the driver knew bodily harm had been caused when leaving the scene — Surveillance footage showing significant impact — Windshield shattered in front of driver, mirror detached, extensive damage — Common sense inference that pedestrian was struck — Guilty verdict<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Assessment of reasonable inferences — Whether any other reasonable inference inconsistent with guilt remained — R. v. Villaroman applied — Totality of surveillance, physical matching debris, forensic transfer evidence, and accused’s statements assessed — Alternative defence theories rejected as not reasonable inferences — Conviction entered
• 2026-10-30 R. v. Boyce, 2026 ONCJ 646 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Offences — Failure or refusal to comply with breath demand — Criminal Code, s. 320.15 — Whether Crown proved offence beyond a reasonable doubt — Lawfulness of breath demand not established on the evidence — Seven-minute roadside investigation and demand timing considered — Not guilty, charge dismissed<br />Procedure — Roadside screening demands — Immediacy requirement — Criminal Code, s. 320.27(1)(b), s. 320.27(2) — Whether breath demand was made “immediately” — Demand made seven minutes after traffic stop — Investigative delay while Charter rights suspended — Immediacy requirement not met — Not guilty, charge dismissed<br />Procedure — Reasonable suspicion — Trigger for immediacy — When officer’s reasonable suspicion crystallized — Suspicion formed on observing erratic driving — Subsequent investigation produced no additional indicia of alcohol consumption — Immediacy requirement commences at reasonable suspicion stage — Demand not made without delay — Not guilty, charge dismissed<br />Procedure — Mandatory Alcohol Screening — Availability after suspicion-based steps — Whether s. 320.27(2) can be relied on after suspicion-based investigation pursued — Provisions not mutually exclusive or hierarchical — MAS issue not material to disposition given failure to prove immediacy — Lawfulness not established beyond a reasonable doubt — Not guilty, charge dismissed