Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-06-09 R. v. Phillips, 2026 ONCJ 333 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Impaired driving and driving while prohibited — Whether denunciation and deterrence prevail over rehabilitation — Criminal Code, s. 718 — Authorities applied, R. v. Lacasse, R. v. Wolynec — Extensive related record and lifetime prohibition emphasised — Two-year custodial term found fit — Sentence of two years’ imprisonment and two years’ probation imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Mitigating factors and mental health — Do PTSD, addiction and treatment efforts justify substantial mitigation? — Causation for mitigation not established, R. v. Fabro, R. v. Megill, R. v. Pioriello — Limited weight to hardship on family, R. v. D.B., R. v. L.C. — Guilty plea and recent efforts recognised — Mitigation limited<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Consecutive sentences — Are consecutive terms totalling two years proportionate for combined offences? — High moral blameworthiness and persistent breaches assessed — Public safety risk heightened by impaired driving history, R. v. Simeunovich, R. v. Lavergne — Proportionality and totality considered — Consecutive sentences confirmed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Probation and ancillary orders — Should probation, lifetime driving prohibition and surcharge waiver be ordered? — Probation to support programming for substance use and mental health — Lifetime driving prohibition imposed — Victim fine surcharge waived due to undue hardship — Ancillary orders imposed as crafted
• 2026-06-09 R. v. Adam, 2026 ONCJ 334 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sexual assault — Elements and mental fault — Intentional touching — Whether the accused intentionally touched complainants in a sexual manner without consent — Objective assessment of sexual nature considered — Consent and knowledge analysed under Ewanchuk and J.A. — Circumstantial inference under Villaroman applied — Similar fact evidence weighed with individual counts — Not guilty on all counts<br />Evidence — Similar fact evidence — Cross‑count admissibility — Presumptively inadmissible threshold and balancing under R. v. Handy and R. v. Ateyah — Do similarities in brief contact during examinations demonstrate situation‑specific propensity — Degree of similarity, distinctive features and connectedness assessed — Reasoning and moral prejudice minimized in judge‑alone trial — Admitted, limited use<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — W.(D.) framework — Whether complainants’ reliability establishes intent beyond reasonable doubt — Distinction between credibility and reliability applied — Inconsistencies, mechanics of examinations, contemporaneous records considered — Circumstantial proof and alternative inferences under Villaroman analysed — Accused’s consistent usual practice weighed — Reasonable doubt maintained<br />Evidence — Tainting — Independence of accounts — Whether media press release or prior information tainted complainants’ evidence — Air of reality to inadvertent tainting addressed — Independence proven on balance of probabilities under Handy factors — Lack of detailed public information noted — Similarities not product of influence — Independence established, impact reserved to weight
• 2026-06-09 Toronto (City) v. 10956392 Canada Inc., 2026 ONCJ 337 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Provincial offences — Cannabis Control Act, 2017 — Actus reus under s. 13(1) — Did the prosecution prove landlord knowingly permitted use in relation to unlawful sale under s. 6? — Agreed Statement of Facts and officer testimony — Premises open and operating, unlicensed cannabis visible — Essential elements established beyond a reasonable doubt — Conviction registered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Defences — Statutory defence under s. 13(2) — Whether the defendant took reasonable measures to prevent the activity — Standard lower than due diligence in R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, contrasted — Objective and subjective assessment per R. v. Barton, para. 104 — Corporate defendant failed to prove defence on a balance of probabilities — Defence rejected<br />Evidence — Credibility — Assessment under W. (D.) — Director’s inconsistent and contradictory testimony — Knowledge of unlicensed operations and prior lock changes disputed — Whether evidence of the accused raises a reasonable doubt — Parts of testimony not credible and self serving — No reasonable doubt arising from defence evidence — Credibility rejected<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Defences — Reasonableness of measures — Were changing locks, serving a Statement of Claim, and contacting police objectively and subjectively reasonable? — Repetition of failed lock changes ineffective — Delay in serving and advancing civil claim unreasonable — Police contact without persistence or documentation inadequate — Measures found futile and ineffective — Defence rejected
• 2026-06-09 Halton (Regional Municipality) v. 2792814 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCJ 338 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Guilty pleas — Voluntariness — Whether the guilty plea was voluntary, unequivocal and informed — Plea inquiry addressing elements, waiver of trial rights and sentencing discretion — Application of R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25 and R. v. Gordon, 2025 ONCA 21 — No prejudice shown and credibility concerns with affidavits — Appeal as to conviction dismissed<br />Statutory interpretation — Municipal by-laws — Penalties — Municipal Act, 2001, s. 429 — Did s. 10 of By-Law No. 121-05 designate a multiple offence or special fine authorising per‑tree penalties? — “Per Tree” wording construed as multiple offence and special fine — Compliance with s. 429(3) caps confirmed — Statutory challenge to fine quantum rejected — Appeal on legality of fine dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Provincial Offences Act context — Was a $1,000,000 fine with rehabilitation and probation fit given parity and totality? — Deliberate clear‑cutting in Natural Heritage System treated as worst‑case facts — Parity distinguished on per‑tree amounts, totality satisfied, deference per R. v. Lacasse — Fitness of sentence upheld — Sentence appeal dismissed
• 2026-06-08 J.A. v. S.M., 2026 ONCJ 328 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Entitlement — Presumption of costs to successful party under subrule 24(3) — Who was successful given dominant parenting issues and divided success under subrule 24(4)? — Mother far more successful on parenting, neither party on support — Success analysis guided by Jackson v. Mayerle and related authorities — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Effect of offers under subrule 24(12) and consideration under subrule 24(14)(a)(iii) — Were the mother’s reasonable offers more favourable than the result and relevant to quantum? — Father’s offer not close to final result — Offers inform reasonableness and amount per Gjorsovski — Costs fixed at $15,000<br />Procedure — Costs — Unreasonable conduct — Whether unreasonable litigation conduct justifies elevated costs under subrule 24, including subrule 24(8) and subrule 24(14)(a)(i) — Father contested every issue, breached orders, findings of family violence, lengthened trial — Reasonableness assessed over totality of proceeding — Elevated costs warranted to sanction behaviour — Costs elevated<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum and payment — How should quantum and payment terms reflect ability to pay and proportionality under subrule 24(14)? — Reasonable hourly rate and time confirmed — Impecuniosity does not excuse unreasonable conduct per MacDonald v. Magel and Gobin — Instalment plan with acceleration on default ordered — Costs fixed at $15,000 payable monthly