Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2025-11-05 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
• 2025-11-03 R. v. Armaleo, 2025 ONCJ 574 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Standing to challenge warrants — Applicant sought to challenge TDR and tracking warrants issued in a drug trafficking investigation — Whether the Applicant had standing to challenge warrants based on alleged Charter breaches of a co-accused — Applicant lacked standing to argue another person’s Charter rights — Charter rights are personal and cannot be vicariously asserted — R. v. Edwards and R. v. Rowbotham applied<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Applicant argued breach of co-accused’s section 8 Charter rights impacted her own rights — Whether section 8 rights can be argued by someone other than the person whose rights were allegedly breached — Charter rights are personal and cannot be extended to another party — R. v. Edwards and R. v. Taylor affirmed<br />Evidence — Reasonable expectation of privacy — Applicant argued she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone and phone number subject to TDR and tracking warrants — Evidence showed no joint use or control of the phone by the Applicant — Mere contact with the phone insufficient to establish a reasonable expectation of privacy — R. v. Marakah and R. v. Spencer distinguished — No reasonable expectation of privacy found
• 2025-10-31 Ontario (Director, Family Responsibility Office) v. Petersoo, 2025 ONCJ 569 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Child support arrears — Default orders — Enforcement of child support obligations — Payor ordered to pay $85,382 in arrears and ongoing monthly child support of $7,151 — Did the court issue an appropriate default order under the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act? — Court ordered arrears to be paid by February 27, 2026, with imprisonment for non-compliance — Section 41(10) of the Act governs enforcement powers<br />Evidence — Financial disclosure — Payor’s failure to provide financial disclosure — Payor did not file financial statements, tax returns, or business records — Did the payor establish a valid inability to pay arrears and ongoing child support? — Court found no valid reasons for non-payment due to lack of evidence and non-compliance with disclosure orders — Adverse inference drawn for failure to disclose<br />Family — Imprisonment for non-payment — Enforcement mechanisms — Imprisonment as a last resort — Factors considered include pattern of arrears, prioritization of self over children, and failure to comply with court orders — Should imprisonment be imposed to enforce child support obligations? — Court ordered imprisonment for non-payment to ensure compliance, balancing enforcement with fairness — Hennessy factors applied
• 2025-10-30 Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T.S., 2025 ONCJ 566 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Child protection — Temporary care and custody — Best interests of the child — Placement of children with mother, paternal grandmother, or Society care — Risk of harm, non-accidental injuries, and exposure to violence — Can children be adequately protected by supervision orders? — Statutory framework under Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 — Least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection<br />Family — Access arrangements — Supervised access for parents and extended family — Sibling access to mitigate separation impact — Exclusion of disruptive individuals from access — Balancing family integrity with children's emotional safety — Governing principles under Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017<br />Evidence — Risk assessment — Credible and trustworthy evidence — Medical findings of non-accidental injuries — Children's disclosures of harm and conflict — Compliance with supervision orders — Standard of proof for temporary care orders — Application of subsection 94(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017<br />Family — Exclusion of individuals from access — Mother's partner excluded due to history of violence and non-compliance — Impact of adult conflict on children's emotional well-being — Necessity of exclusion to enforce supervision orders — Governing principles for access restrictions under Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017<br />Social welfare — Compliance with supervision orders — Consequences of non-compliance — Risk of placement in Society care — Court's expectations for parties to prioritize children's needs — Monitoring and reporting by Society — Framework for addressing non-compliance under Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017
• 2025-10-29 R. v. Narang, 2025 ONCJ 564 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b) — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Total delay of 29 months and 25 days in a summary conviction trial — Presumptive ceiling of 18 months exceeded — Does the delay violate the accused's Charter right to a trial within a reasonable time? — Framework from R. v. Jordan applied — Delay found presumptively unreasonable<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter remedies — Stay of proceedings — Unreasonable delay — Accused sought a stay of proceedings as a remedy for breach of section 11(b) of the Charter — Whether a stay is appropriate when the delay exceeds the presumptive ceiling and no exceptional circumstances exist — Charges stayed due to unreasonable delay<br />Criminal procedure — Delay apportionment — Defence, Crown, and court responsibility — Principles from R. v. Hanan applied — Contextual analysis of delay caused by defence unavailability, Crown inaction, and court scheduling — Delay apportioned equally between Crown and defence for certain periods — Crown and court failed to prioritize rescheduling after delay exceeded presumptive ceiling<br />Criminal procedure — Exceptional circumstances — Presumptive ceiling exceeded — Whether the Crown established exceptional circumstances to justify delay — No exceptional circumstances found — Routine drinking and driving case with no complexity or unforeseen events — Crown failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate delay<br />Criminal procedure — Rescheduling delays — Trial adjournment caused by defence conduct — Crown and court failed to secure earlier trial dates despite direction to prioritize case — Whether the Crown and court's inaction contributed to unreasonable delay — Court and Crown shared responsibility for delay beyond the presumptive ceiling