Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2025-11-12 R. v. Moore, 2025 ONCJ 596 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Production of methamphetamine — Offender pleaded guilty to producing methamphetamine in a clandestine lab as part of a large-scale drug network — What is the appropriate sentence for the offence, considering denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation? — Sentence of 5 years imposed, reflecting mitigating factors and collateral consequences — Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 7(1); Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2<br />Health — Mitigating factors — Offender’s health issues, including symptoms of Ménière’s disease, financial strain, and lack of prior criminal record — Offender demonstrated remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and positive prospects for reintegration — Should these factors reduce the sentence? — Mitigating factors considered but balanced against the seriousness of the offence<br />Health — Collateral consequences — Pre-sentence custody — Offender experienced severe physical effects due to interruption of prescribed medication while in custody — Should collateral consequences of pre-sentence custody be considered in sentencing? — Collateral consequences treated as a mitigating factor but not overriding denunciation and deterrence<br />Criminal procedure — Ancillary orders — DNA order and firearm prohibition — Offender ordered to provide DNA sample and prohibited from possessing firearms and related items for life — Ancillary orders imposed under Criminal Code, ss. 109, 487.051
• 2025-11-07 R. v. Dainard, 2025 ONCJ 583 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Disclosure obligations — Defence motion for further disclosure — Crown's ongoing duty to disclose — Defence sought source documents for all facets of the investigation — Whether the disclosure motion was untimely and lacked focus — Impact of granting disclosure on trial schedule and delay — R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31 — Crown disclosure obligations balanced against trial efficiency and timeliness<br />Evidence — Cross-examination of affiant — Defence motion for leave to cross-examine affiant on Information to Obtain (ITO) — Alleged misrepresentations, omissions, and errors in ITO — Whether cross-examination necessary to discredit preconditions for search warrant issuance — Preventing "fishing expeditions" — R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421 — Evidentiary threshold for granting leave to cross-examine affiant<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure — Judicial authorization for search warrants — Presumptive validity of judicial orders — Whether Defence demonstrated that affiant's statements undermined reasonable and probable grounds for search — Balancing individual rights and public interest in efficient judicial processes — R. v. Pires; R. v. Lising, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343<br />Evidence — Information to Obtain (ITO) — Sufficiency of information in ITO — Facial validity versus sub-facial validity — Defence's burden to demonstrate material misrepresentations or omissions in ITO — Whether alleged errors in ITO discredited grounds for search warrant issuance — R. v. Morelli, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253 — Evidentiary basis required to challenge ITO content
• 2025-11-06 R. v. Beites, 2025 ONCJ 582 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Uttering threats — Criminal Code, s. 264.1(1) — Accused left a voicemail threatening bodily harm to her son and arson against her daughter-in-law’s business — Whether the voicemail constituted a threat under section 264.1(1) — Reasonable person standard applied to determine whether the utterance would be perceived as a threat — Crown met burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt<br />Family — Family conflicts — Context of estranged family relationships — Accused excluded from son’s funeral and estranged from grandchildren — Voicemail left in the context of ongoing family disputes — Whether family dynamics and conflicts influenced the interpretation of the accused’s intent — Court focused on the tenor of relationships and circumstances surrounding the utterance<br />Criminal procedure — Mens rea — Subjective intent — Whether the accused intended her words to intimidate or be taken seriously — Court considered the tone, language, and context of the voicemail — Ambiguity in language evaluated in context — Mens rea established where intent to intimidate was inferred from circumstances<br />Evidence — Ambiguity in language — Voicemail contained vulgar and aggressive language, including references to “burn” and “going down” — Court rejected defence argument that language referred to civil litigation — Ambiguity in language does not necessarily raise reasonable doubt — Ambiguous threats can still be intended to intimidate — Evidence supported finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
• 2025-11-05 R. v. Cappella, 2025 ONCJ 578 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Aggravated assault — Defence of person — Accused struck complainant with a baseball bat, causing severe injuries — Whether the defence of person under s. 34 of the Criminal Code applied — Crown disproved reasonableness of the accused’s actions — Strike deemed disproportionate and unreasonable — Aggravated assault proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Criminal Code, s. 34<br />Criminal infractions — Attempted murder — Intent to kill — Accused struck complainant with a baseball bat — Whether the accused intended to kill — Crown failed to prove intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt — Single blow and subsequent flight inconsistent with homicidal intent — Attempted murder not proven — Criminal Code, s. 229<br />Criminal infractions — Assault with a weapon — Self-defence — Accused struck and swung a baseball bat at complainant — Whether self-defence applied to strikes and swings — Crown failed to disprove self-defence for strikes during fight — Swing before fight deemed unreasonable and not justified by self-defence — Assault with a weapon partially proven — Criminal Code, s. 34<br />Criminal infractions — Uttering threats — Self-defence — Accused uttered death threats during confrontation — Whether self-defence applied to utterances — Crown failed to disprove that threats were defensive and proportionate to perceived threat — Uttering threats not proven — Criminal Code, s. 34<br />Criminal procedure — Burden of proof — Self-defence — Crown’s burden to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt — Reasonableness of accused’s actions assessed under s. 34 of the Criminal Code — Standard of proof clarified — R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33
• 2025-11-05 R. v. Anwer, 2025 ONCJ 581 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Assault — Assault by choking — Accused charged with assault and choking contrary to sections 266 and 267(c) of the Criminal Code — Complainant alleged physical violence, including choking and striking — Whether the accused committed the alleged offenses — Evidence of bruising, photographs, and medical records corroborated complainant’s testimony — Accused’s denial rejected as incapable of belief — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 266, 267(c)<br />Criminal procedure — Standard of proof — Reasonable doubt — Assessment of conflicting evidence — Whether the evidence presented by the Crown established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — Trial judge applied the framework from R. v. W(D.) — Evidence considered as a whole, including corroborative photographs and medical records — Accused’s testimony found implausible — Framework governing reasonable doubt in criminal trials<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — Complainant’s testimony — Inconsistencies in testimony and admission of lying about alcohol consumption — Whether inconsistencies undermined credibility — Trial judge found complainant credible despite minor inconsistencies — Explanation for lying about alcohol consumption accepted — Photographs and medical records corroborated complainant’s account — Principles from R. v. Morrissey and R. v. H.C. applied