Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2025-09-08 R. v. Gonzales Trejos, 2025 ONCJ 462 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Breath demand — Warrantless seizure — Failure to make a formal or informal breath demand under s. 320.28(1) of the Criminal Code — Whether the absence of a demand rendered the seizure of breath samples unlawful — Charter ss. 8, 9 — Warrantless searches must comply with statutory requirements to be lawful — Police conduct found to violate the accused's Charter rights<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Right to counsel — Delay in implementing s. 10(b) rights — Police failed to consider facilitating access to counsel at the roadside — Whether systemic police practices unduly delayed access to counsel — Charter s. 10(b) — Right to counsel must be implemented at the earliest reasonable opportunity<br />Evidence — Exclusion of evidence — Charter breaches — Breath samples, statements, and observations obtained following violations of ss. 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter — Whether admission of evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute — Charter s. 24(2) — Evidence excluded due to cumulative impact of multiple Charter violations
• 2025-09-05 R. v. Wickham, 2025 ONCJ 461 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Assault — Defence of property — Accused charged with assault after pushing landlord out of rental property — Whether the accused had a valid defence under section 35(1) of the Criminal Code — Defence of property requires reasonable belief of peaceable possession, unlawful entry, defensive purpose, and reasonable force — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 35(1)<br />Property — Defence of property — Reasonable force — Accused used physical force to expel landlord from rental property — Whether the force used was reasonable in the circumstances — Force must be proportionate to the threat posed — Negligible threat posed by landlord entering to investigate plumbing issue — Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the force used was unreasonable — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 35(1)(d)<br />Lease — Landlord's right of entry — Notice requirements under Residential Tenancies Act — Landlord entered rental property to investigate plumbing issue — Whether landlord provided lawful notice of entry — Notice must specify date, time, and purpose of entry and need not be received to be effective — Crown failed to prove notice was provided — Residential Tenancies Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 17, s. 27<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — Landlord-tenant relationship — Acrimonious relationship between landlord and tenant — Whether complainant's evidence was credible and reliable — Court accepted evidence of independent witnesses to corroborate complainant's account — Minor inconsistencies in testimony did not undermine overall reliability
• 2025-09-04 R. v. Mann, 2025 ONCJ 457 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Possession of firearm — Prohibited device — Knowledge and control — Accused found guilty of possessing a loaded, prohibited firearm and over-capacity magazine in a duffel bag — Did the accused have knowledge and control over the firearm and prohibited items? — Crown established possession through circumstantial evidence and direct observations — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 86(1), 91(1), 92(1)<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Inference versus speculation — Defence theory of evidence planting by a third party — Defence argued firearm was planted by another resident to frame the accused — Was the defence theory sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt? — Defence theory rejected as speculative and unsupported by evidence — R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 applied<br />Evidence — Identification of accused — Surveillance and covert camera footage — Police observations of accused carrying blue duffel bag containing firearm — Was the accused properly identified as the individual in possession of the duffel bag? — Identification of accused established through consistent police testimony and photographic evidence<br />Criminal procedure — Constructive possession — Knowledge and control — Firearm found in accused's residence — Did the Crown meet its burden of proof in establishing constructive possession? — Constructive possession established through accused's exclusive use of the duffel bag and presence of personal items within it — R. v. Morelli, 2010 SCC 8 applied
• 2025-09-04 Norfolk (County) v. Jerome, 2025 ONCJ 460 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Construction — Building Code Act — Compliance with orders — Construction without permits — Defendant charged with failing to comply with an order to comply and constructing a building without a permit — Whether the prosecution proved the actus reus of both offences beyond a reasonable doubt — Building Code Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 23<br />Municipalities — Zoning by-laws — Legal non-conforming use — Whether the defendant’s property retained legal non-conforming use rights under municipal zoning by-laws — Application of Saint-Romuald and other precedents — Whether the municipality’s by-laws extinguished or modified legal non-conforming uses — Planning Act, RSO 1990, c P.13<br />Environment — Hazard land designation — Long Point property — Whether the defendant’s property, designated as hazard land, retained legal non-conforming use rights — Balancing environmental protection with acquired property rights — Application of Saint-Romuald and related case law<br />Property — Due diligence defence — Reasonable care and mistaken belief — Whether the defendant exercised reasonable care or held a mistaken belief in facts that would excuse the alleged offences — Application of Sault Ste. Marie and Ashley Developments Ltd<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Direct evidence — Whether the prosecution could rely on circumstantial evidence to prove non-compliance with an order to comply — Whether the existence of three independent structures raised a reasonable doubt regarding compliance with the Building Code Act
• 2025-09-03 North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services v. M.R., 2025 ONCJ 453 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Child protection — Interaction of criminal and child protection orders — Paramountcy doctrine — Criminal release orders conflicting with child protection access orders — Whether criminal court orders override child protection orders under the CYFSA — Criminal court orders prevail in cases of conflict — Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sch. 1, s. 87(7), 87(8), 94(8), 94(11)<br />Child protection — Temporary access — Best interests of the child — Allegations of severe abuse — Supervised access for parents — Whether temporary access is appropriate for parents accused of abuse — Balancing risks of harm from abuse and harm from separation — CYFSA, ss. 1(1), 1(2), 74(3), 94(8)<br />Child protection — Supervised access — Terms and conditions — Supervision by society workers — Frequency and duration of access — Separate access for parents — Whether parents should have joint or separate access — Incremental approach to access — CYFSA, s. 94(8)<br />Child protection — Developmental assessments — Best interests of the child — Whether developmental assessments should be directed to assist in determining access and parenting time — Importance of understanding children’s emotional well-being and attachment — CYFSA, ss. 1(1), 1(2), 74(3)