Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2025-10-03 R. v. Bustamante-Garzon, 2025 ONCJ 515 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Home invasion robbery — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Accused participated in violent home invasion targeting a prominent artist — Victim assaulted, confined, and threatened with weapons — Stolen property valued at $6 million, with $3.6 million unrecovered — Accused’s youth, lack of criminal record, and early guilty plea considered — Sentence of five years imposed — Governing principles of deterrence and denunciation under ss. 718 and 718.2 of the Criminal Code<br />Criminal procedure — Pre-trial custody — Harsh conditions — Accused detained for 120 days in overcrowded and understaffed facility — Lockdowns and triple-bunking documented — Credit of eight months granted for pre-trial custody — State’s failure to meet minimum standards for incarceration considered in sentencing — Principles of fairness and proportionality in sentencing<br />Evidence — Role of the accused — Agreed Statement of Facts — Accused’s involvement in forced entry, initial assault, and preventing victim’s escape — Not the ringleader or wielder of weapons — Submissions by counsel based on victim’s statement and disclosure — Court accepted accused’s lesser role but emphasized his active participation in the robbery and confinement — Application of principles from R. v. Drepaul and other case law
• 2025-10-02 R. v. Sajeevan, 2025 ONCJ 510 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Voyeurism — Sentencing — Offender pleaded guilty to four counts of voyeurism under s. 162(1) of the Criminal Code — Offences involved surreptitious observation and video recording of female housemates in a private bathroom over six months — What is the appropriate sentence for the offender? — Principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality emphasized — Custodial jail sentence imposed — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2<br />Criminal infractions — Conditional sentence orders — Sentencing principles — Whether a conditional sentence order (CSO) is appropriate for voyeurism offences — Court rejected joint submission for a CSO, finding it inconsistent with proportionality and public confidence in the administration of justice — Custodial sentence deemed necessary to address gravity of offences and offender's moral culpability — Criminal Code, s. 742.1<br />Citizenship and immigration — Collateral consequences — Sentencing considerations — Offender was a 20-year-old Indian citizen on a student visa — Court considered potential immigration consequences as a collateral factor but emphasized proportionality and seriousness of offences — Collateral consequences not sufficient to reduce custodial sentence — Criminal Code, s. 718.2<br />Criminal procedure — Ancillary orders — DNA and SOIRA orders — Whether ancillary orders should be issued for voyeurism offences — Court declined to issue DNA order due to lack of jurisdiction under s. 487.051 for summary conviction offences — SOIRA order not issued as intent to commit a primary offence was not established — Criminal Code, ss. 487.051, 490.011
• 2025-10-02 R. v. Thomas-Henry, 2025 ONCJ 511 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Firearm offences — Discharging a firearm — Pointing a firearm — Careless use of a firearm — Discharging a firearm with intent to endanger life — Whether the accused was the shooter — Whether the firearm met the definition under s. 2 of the Criminal Code — Crown's burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — R. v. Villaroman framework for circumstantial evidence<br />Criminal procedure — Credibility and reliability of witnesses — Inconsistencies in testimony — Alcohol consumption and its impact on reliability — Whether inconsistencies were minor or material — Application of the reasonable doubt standard — Witnesses found credible despite minor inconsistencies — Testimony corroborated by physical evidence — R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33<br />Evidence — Firearm definition — Proof of firearm under s. 2 of the Criminal Code — Damage to van as evidence of firearm use — Lack of recovered firearm — Ammunition found in residence — Mid-range to long-range shot causing significant damage — Crown's failure to prove muzzle velocity under s. 84(3)(d) of the Criminal Code — R. v. Charbonneau, R. v. Dillon<br />Indigenous peoples — Incident occurring on Six Nations Reserve — Police investigation and arrest of accused on reserve — Context of Indigenous community and law enforcement interaction — No specific Indigenous legal principles applied in decision — (N/A)<br />Statutory interpretation — Dangerous operation of a motor vehicle — Driving while prohibited — Interpretation of "dangerous operation" under the Criminal Code — High-speed police chase — Failure to stop at stop signs — Vehicle crash due to excessive speed — Marked departure from reasonable driving standard — Criminal Code, s. 320.13<br />Transportation — Dangerous driving — Police pursuit — High-speed chase exceeding 150 km/h — Failure to stop at intersections — Vehicle rollover — Accused found as sole occupant of vehicle — Driving while prohibited — Evidence supporting dangerous operation conviction
• 2025-10-01 R. v. Freedland, 2025 ONCJ 507 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Firearm forfeiture — Public safety — Section 117.05 of the Criminal Code — Whether respondent's conduct and attitude toward firearm ownership meet the standard of responsibility and discipline required — Test for determining "legitimate concerns" about firearm possession — Balance of probabilities standard — Forfeiture of firearms and prohibition orders granted — Public safety as the primary objective of section 117.05 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 117.05<br />Evidence — Admissibility — Hearsay evidence — Section 117.05 hearings — Whether evidence from prior criminal trial, including hearsay, can be admitted and relied upon — Lower evidentiary threshold compared to criminal trials — Requirement for evidence to be credible and trustworthy — Use of prior trial evidence to assess public safety concerns, not to infer criminal guilt — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 117.05
• 2025-10-01 R. v. R.B., 2025 ONCJ 508 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Applicant alleged delay of 951 days exceeded the 18-month ceiling for provincial court matters — Was the delay presumptively unreasonable? — Framework from R. v. Jordan applied — Net delay found to be below the presumptive ceiling — Application dismissed<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b) — Delay in criminal proceedings — Applicant alleged violation of right to trial within a reasonable time — Defence delay of 448 days attributed to counsel’s inaction — Did the Applicant’s inaction contribute to the delay? — Defence counsel’s responsibility to actively advance section 11(b) rights emphasized<br />Professional responsibility — Defence counsel — Timeliness of section 11(b) applications — Counsel failed to raise delay issue until shortly before trial — Inadvertence admitted by counsel — Did counsel’s failure to act promptly justify attributing delay to the defence? — Defence counsel’s duty to act proactively under R. v. Cody and R. v. J.F. applied<br />Criminal procedure — Pre-trial applications — Compliance with procedural rules — Section 11(b) application filed in violation of Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice and Chief Justice’s practice direction — Application served 12 days before hearing, contrary to 30-day requirement — Hearing set 20 days before trial, contrary to 60-day rule — Did procedural non-compliance justify summary dismissal? — Application allowed to proceed despite violations