Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-03-23 R. v. Andriano, 2026 ONCJ 159 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Disclosure in POA matters — Whether additional first-party disclosure should be ordered — Relevance assessed to the charge and reasonably possible defences — FOI-obtained documents support potential defences and Charter application — Duty to furnish field notes, memoranda, investigators files engaged — Order to search records and disclose without impeding pending Charter dates — Disclosure ordered<br />Evidence — Crown disclosure — Threshold of relevance under Stinchcombe — Does the low threshold of usefulness to the defence govern POA disclosure — Stinchcombe, R. v. Taillefer and R. v. Duguay, and R. v. Egger applied — Relevance favours disclosure of inculpatory and exculpatory information — Little information exempt from duty — Disclosure ordered<br />Procedure — Onus — Accused’s initial onus to justify disclosure — Whether the defendant established a basis to obligate the Crown to search, review, and argue exclusion — R. v. Gateway Industries Ltd considered — Initial fishing concerns overcome by FOI materials and demonstrated relevance — Basis for court-ordered disclosure established — Disclosure ordered<br />Procedure — Prosecution response — Effect of failure to oppose disclosure — Whether the Crown’s non-response indicates no opposition — Initial opposition contrasted with no reply to renewed motion — Court infers no opposition and proceeds on relevance and onus findings — Order for production issued — Disclosure ordered
• 2026-03-20 McNamara v. McNamara, 2026 ONCJ 157 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Case conferences — Family Law Rules, r. 17(18) — Whether costs may be awarded where the applicant did not attend and did not serve a conference brief — Unproductive conference found — Respondent entitled to costs — Costs payable forthwith under r. 17(18)(a) — Costs ordered<br />Procedure — Costs — Self‑represented litigants — Costs for lay litigant’s time and limited scope counsel — Whether the respondent may recover for own work and assisting counsel for this step — Guidance from Jordan v. Stewart and Browne v. Cerasa applied — Overlap with counsel’s work considered — Limited scope bill accepted for this step — Costs ordered<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum — Reasonableness, proportionality and ability to pay — Subrule 24(14) factors considered, including behaviour, time spent, and legal fees — Reasonableness of positions assessed under Beaver v. Hill and Weber v. Weber — Applicant able to pay and should have expected costs for non‑attendance — Costs ordered
• 2026-03-18 R. v. Chand, 2026 ONCJ 153 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Sentencing in absentia — Counsel of record — Should the court sentence the accused in his absence under s. 475? — Accused found to have absconded and necessity established — Counsel removed as counsel of record in absence of instructions, s. 475(4) noted — Appointment of amicus declined due to delay and limited assistance — Sentencing in absentia granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Aggravated assault — What is a proportionate sentence given a stated intent to kill? — Tourville range and appellate authorities considered — Unprovoked, frenzied knife attack with severe injuries treated as highly aggravating — Principle of restraint for first offender weighed with denunciation and deterrence — Four‑year custodial sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Restitution — Loss of income — Should restitution be ordered despite unknown present ability to pay under s. 739.1? — Bodily and psychological harm with pecuniary damages modest and readily ascertainable — Payment through the court office ordered with sufficient time for payment — Restitution ordered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — DNA, firearms prohibition, non‑communication — Should DNA and extended firearms prohibition under s. 109 be imposed? — Primary compulsory DNA offence established under s. 487.04(a) — Firearms prohibition extended beyond statutory minimum for public protection — Non‑communication during custody ordered under s. 743.21(1) — Ancillary orders imposed
• 2026-03-16 R. v. Palmer, 2026 ONCJ 146 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Trial — Traffic stop leading to multiple counts — Inventory revealed distinctive satchel with loaded Glock and drugs — Accused’s spontaneous utterances admitted — Possession of loaded restricted firearm and over-capacity magazine proven — MDMA possession for the purpose of trafficking established — Cocaine and crack cocaine reduced to simple possession — Refusal to provide ASD sample proven — Findings of guilt entered<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter — Arbitrary detention — Did arrest under HTA s. 53 and detention breach s. 9? — Allegation of racial profiling considered under Le and Dudhi — ASD demand and inventory search challenged — Right to silence under s. 7 engaged and respected — Detention lawful and not arbitrary — No Charter breach established — Charter application dismissed<br />Evidence — Confessions — Voluntariness — Were the accused’s utterances to police voluntary and admissible? — Oickle framework applied, no promises threats or inducements — Multiple cautions given, operating mind found, no oppressive atmosphere — Spontaneous statements while detained recorded in officer’s notes — Adequate record for admissibility — Utterances admitted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Possession — Firearms and drugs — Has the Crown proven knowledge and control of the satchel contents? — Distinctive satchel habitually used by the accused, identification cards in his name — Only available inference standard applied per Villaroman — Loaded restricted firearm and MDMA possession established — MDMA for purpose of trafficking proven — Cocaine and crack cocaine as simple possession — Findings of guilt entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Motor vehicle offences — Refusal of ASD demand — Was the ASD demand lawful and refusal proven? — Odour of alcoholic beverage detected, reasonable suspicion formed — Device available and demand made, immediate compliance required per R. v. Breault — Clear refusal after consequences explained — Offence established beyond a reasonable doubt — Finding of guilt entered
• 2026-03-16 Tanner v. Meade, 2026 ONCJ 147 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Family Law Rules — Entitlement to costs — Presumption of costs to successful party under subrule 24(3) — Was the respondent the successful party on the motion and application? — Comparison with positions and outcome considered — Unreasonable litigation conduct addressed — Self‑represented status and limited means not determinative — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Offers to settle — Full recovery — Subrule 24(12) and Rule 18(4) technical compliance — Does the offer to settle attract full recovery costs? — Court’s discretion to depart from full indemnity applied — Offer equal to or better than result obtained — Applicant failed to accept reasonable offer — Full recovery not ordered<br />Procedure — Costs assessment — Quantum — Subrule 24(14) factors and documentation under subrule 24(15) — Reasonableness and proportionality of rates and time — Ability to pay considered with unreasonable conduct — Importance not complex or difficult — Administrative fee and clerical rates reduced — Payment schedule ordered — Costs fixed at $4,500 payable monthly