Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-09-18 R. v. Angelone, 2026 ONCJ 559 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — Charter application — ss. 8, 9 and 10(b) alleged breaches — Warrantless search incident to arrest and arbitrary arrest allegations rejected — Implementational right to counsel breach found for failure to facilitate contact with counsel of choice — Charter s. 24(2) analysis applied — Charter application dismissed<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 9 — Arbitrary arrest — ALPR alert identifying vehicle as stolen — Did an ALPR hit provide reasonable grounds to arrest — Credibly based probability standard, higher than suspicion and lower than balance of probabilities — Possibility of error not negating reasonable grounds — Arrest not arbitrary — No s. 9 breach<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Arrest powers — Criminal Code, s. 495(2) — Police discretion — Whether the officer ought not to have exercised discretion to arrest — R. v. Carignan distinguished on dynamic roadside investigation — Public interest includes investigative objectives and preservation of evidence — Chosen option not unreasonable — Exercise of arrest power lawful<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 8 — Search incident to arrest — Satchel and bags — Whether search was genuinely incidental to lawful arrest — Valid law enforcement purposes include officer safety, evidence discovery and preservation, prevention of escape — Contemporaneous search, close association with accused, unknown contents — No unreasonable search — No s. 8 breach<br />Procedure — Charter remedies — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 24(2) — Exclusion of evidence — Implementational right to counsel under Charter s. 10(b) and R. v. Taylor — Failure to facilitate contact with counsel after repeated requests — R. v. Grant factors applied, limited impact and reliable real evidence — Evidence not excluded — Impugned evidence admissible at trial
• 2026-09-18 York (Regional Municipality) v. Zhou, 2026 ONCJ 555 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Highway Traffic Act speeding — Community safety zone — Highway Traffic Act, s. 128 — Speed enforcement using Lidar device — Speed measured at 74km/h in a 50km/h zone — Conviction entered and fine imposed — Appeal from provincial offence conviction — Appeal dismissed<br />Evidence — Burden of proof — Reasonable doubt — R v WD — Whether the justice of the peace failed to apply the WD framework — Reasons read as a whole in a summary trial with oral reasons — Acceptance of officer evidence and rejection of vague defence evidence — Proper application of burden of proof found — Appeal dismissed<br />Evidence — Scientific and technical evidence — Lidar speed measurement — DragonEye Speed Lidar — Whether the device was proved to be in working order and providing reliable readings — Internal software tests and three external tests described — Lidar not novel technology, Regional Municipality of York v Iagolnik — Additional imagined testing not required — Appeal dismissed<br />Evidence — Witness testimony — Refreshing memory — Notes and ICC video — Whether reliance on notes and “reconstructed recollection” was improper given limited independent recollection — Officer described recollection as vague and referred to notes for details — ICC video used to refresh memory — No requirement for corroborative evidence found — Reliability accepted in context of speed enforcement — Appeal dismissed<br />Procedure — Appeal — Unreasonable verdict — R v McAllister — Whether the verdict is unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence — Appellate avenues for unreasonable verdict reviewed — Reasons of the justice of the peace show findings grounded in the evidence — Lidar reading accepted and no reasonable doubt arising — Verdict upheld — Appeal dismissed
• 2026-09-15 R. v. Singh, 2026 ONCJ 548 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Child sexual offences — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.01, 718.1 — What is a fit and proportionate custodial sentence for sexual interference and related offences — Denunciation and deterrence given primary consideration — Aggravating and mitigating circumstances weighed — Sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment imposed<br />Citizenship and immigration — Collateral consequences — Removal and appeal rights — R. v. Pham, R. v. McKenzie — To what extent may immigration consequences justify reducing an otherwise fit sentence — Whether sentence can be reduced to preserve Immigration Appeal Division appeal — Sentence not reduced or restructured to avoid immigration consequences — Reduction refused<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Concurrency and totality — Whether sentences should be served concurrently for offences arising from a single criminal transaction — Separate legal elements and societal interests considered — Totality principle applied to avoid disproportionate cumulative sentence — Concurrent 90-day sentences imposed on remaining counts<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Sex offender registration — Criminal Code, s. 490.013 — Whether a lifetime SOIRA order is warranted — Pattern of behaviour and increased risk of reoffending assessed — Single brief encounter and treatment engagement considered — Lifetime order not warranted — 10-year SOIRA order imposed
• 2026-09-15 A.N. v. A.M., 2026 ONCJ 552 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Parenting time — Best interests of the child — Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 24 factors applied — Whether shared residence (2-2-5-5) would increase conflict risk — Ability and willingness to communicate and co-operate assessed — Family violence impact considered — Existing parenting schedule maintained<br />Family — Spousal support — Entitlement, quantum and duration — Family Law Act, ss. 29, 30, 33(8) — Whether present entitlement to non-compensatory, need-based spousal support established — Transitional support in short marriage — Support reduced to low end — Support ordered then terminating<br />Family — Support — Imputation of income — Federal Child Support Guidelines, s. 19(1)(a), Drygala v. Pauli, Homsi v. Zaya — Whether mother intentionally underemployed — Part-time work from home while child young considered — Child commencing school changes circumstances — Income imputed at full-time level<br />Family — Child support and section 7 — Retroactive support and arrears — Whether father’s paid expenses justify no retroactive child support — Child support is right of the child — Table amounts applied to unpaid period — Section 7 arrears fixed and shared proportionately — Arrears ordered with repayment schedule
• 2026-09-14 Halton (Regional Municipality) v. Tsaltas, 2026 ONCJ 545 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Highway Traffic Act — Provincial Offences Act, Part I — Disobeying a sign, Highway Traffic Act, s. 182 — Appeal from conviction entered in defendant’s absence — Set fine proceeding relying on certificate of offence — Whether conviction should be set aside on appeal — Appeal dismissed<br />Procedure — Provincial Offences Act — Trial in absentia — POA, s. 54 and s. 9.1 — Whether justice must follow default procedure when defendant fails to attend — Discretion to proceed by hearing in absence or administrative conviction route — Statutory interpretation in scheme and purpose of POA — Appeal dismissed<br />Procedure — Provincial Offences Act — Amendment of certificate — POA, s. 34(4) and s. 34(5) — Whether Justice of the Peace failed to consider mandatory statutory factors — Sufficiency of reasons and review on Part I appeal — Amendment found unnecessary or appropriate, no prejudice established — Appeal dismissed<br />Evidence — Provincial Offences Act — Certificate evidence and judicial notice — POA, s. 48.1, “complete and regular” — Whether omission of municipality affects proof of jurisdiction or prejudices defendant — Judicial notice of intersection location using Google Maps — Certificate sufficient to establish jurisdiction — Appeal dismissed