Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-09-28 R. v. Guntamukkala, 2026 ONCJ 571 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired driving — Operating a conveyance over legal limit — Whether the Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt — Breath test results admitted and relied on after Charter ruling — Accused conceded driving and elements absent exclusion — Offence proven beyond reasonable doubt — Guilty finding<br />Constitution — Charter — s. 10(b) right to counsel — Informational component — Whether police unjustifiably delayed advising of the right to counsel without delay after ASD fail — Officer equated “without delay” with “as soon as practicable” — No safety concerns and earliest reasonable opportunity identified — s. 10(b) breach found<br />Constitution — Charter — s. 10(b) counsel of choice — Implementational component — Whether police failed to facilitate counsel of choice by not verifying the return caller was a lawyer — Both detainee and officer believed caller associated with chosen lawyer’s office was a lawyer — No dissatisfaction expressed and duty counsel also consulted — No breach found<br />Constitution — Charter — s. 24(2) exclusion of evidence — R. v. Grant factors — Whether breath test results should be excluded for s. 10(b) delay — State conduct serious but impact on Charter-protected interests minimal and neutral — Breath readings reliable, essential, non-intrusive and central to merits — Exclusion would terminate prosecution — Evidence admitted
• 2026-09-23 R. v. Ndreko, 2026 ONCJ 567 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Intimate partner violence — Conditional sentence orders — Criminal Code, s. 742.1 — Whether confinement should be served in the community — Denunciation and deterrence assume prominence — Proportionality under s. 718.1 applied — Conditional sentence order declined — Jail sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Aggravating factors — Intimate partner violence — Criminal Code, s. 718.2(a)(ii), s. 718.2(a)(iii.1), s. 718.201 — Repeated acts of violence against same intimate partner — Assault on pregnant spouse treated as particularly aggravating — Profound emotional impact considered — Aggravating factors applied — Sentence increased<br />Citizenship and immigration — Sentencing — Collateral consequences — Permanent resident offender — Whether immigration consequences should affect sentence — Immigration status not mitigating but collateral consequences considered — Caution against inadequate or artificial sentences to circumvent Parliament’s will — R. v. Pham, R. v. Suter cited — Possibility accepted and weighed — No reduction to community sentence<br />Evidence — Victim impact statements — Admissible scope — Criminal Code, ss. 722(1) and 722(8) — Whether portions not directly tied to the three offences can be considered — Court to consider only relevant portions but not unduly narrow evidentiary function — VIS may situate harm within broader pattern of misconduct — Objection rejected — VIS considered within statutory limits
• 2026-09-22 R. v. Palacios, 2026 ONCJ 564 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter application — Impaired operation and breath samples — Charter ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b) alleged — Whether Intoxilyzer readings should be excluded under Charter s. 24(2) — Credibility and reliability findings on officer evidence and body-worn camera — Evidence excluded — Not guilty verdicts<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter, s. 10(a) — Detention and arrest information — Whether detainee was informed promptly of the real reason for detention — False statement “you ran an amber” and omission of sobriety check — Whether accused was informed of reason for arrest in a way he could hear and understand — Two s. 10(a) breaches found<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter, s. 10(b) — Right to counsel — Whether officer kept detainee uninformed about a right to counsel of choice — Presented Duty Counsel as the only choice and interrupted interpretation with “yes or no” demands — Whether delay in arrest delayed right to counsel — Section 10(b) breach found<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter, ss. 9 and 8 — Warrantless arrest and breath demand — Whether Crown proved subjective grounds for arrest under Criminal Code, s. 495(1)(a) — Whether breath demand was lawful under Criminal Code, s. 320.27(2) — R. v. T.G. applied to subjective grounds — Sections 9 and 8 breaches found<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter, s. 24(2) — Exclusion of evidence — Whether admission of Intoxilyzer readings would bring administration of justice into disrepute — R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 factors assessed, seriousness of deliberate interconnected breaches — Impact of misinformation and compromised communication considered — Balance favoured exclusion — Readings excluded under s. 24(2)
• 2026-09-22 R. v. Oderkirk, 2026 ONCJ 565 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional discharge and probation — Guilty plea to failing to comply with an undertaking and release order — Conditional discharge on completing three years of probation — No contact and distance conditions imposed — Discharge ordered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Restitution — Criminal Code, s. 738(1)(b) — Whether restitution for counselling is appropriate despite no means to pay — Ability to pay and rehabilitative prospects considered — Victim counselling receipts assessed and adjusted — Restitution order granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — DNA databanking — Criminal Code, s. 487.051(3)(b) — Whether DNA order is in the best interests of the administration of justice — Nature and circumstances of non-compliance and victim impact assessed — Privacy and security of the person balanced against public interest — DNA databanking ordered<br />Rights and freedoms — Privacy — DNA retention after discharge — DNA Identification Act, Criminal Code — Whether R. v. Vu requires considering disparity between discharged offenders and record-suspended offenders — Impact on privacy interest assessed in light of indefinite storage — Disparity considered but found not to outweigh public interest — DNA order upheld<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Bail and release — No-contact breaches — Whether repeated non-technical breaches support ancillary orders notwithstanding a discharge — Pattern of control and victim impact considered — Offender’s conduct described as flouting release conditions — Ancillary orders imposed — Conditions continued and enforced
• 2026-09-22 R. v. Sahul-Hameed, 2026 ONCJ 566 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Trial verdicts — Mixed findings — Two-witness criminal trial — Central issue credibility and burden beyond a reasonable doubt — Mischief (Criminal Code, s. 430(4)(b)) and causing unnecessary pain to an animal (Criminal Code, s. 445.1(2)(b)) proven — Sexual assault (Criminal Code, s. 271(b)) not proven — Guilty verdicts entered and counts dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sexual assault — Credibility and reasonable doubt — Whether the Crown proved the two allegations of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt — Complainant relied on general patterns and had uncertainty on details and dates — External evidence including photographs and text messages considered — Defence evidence capable of leaving a reasonable doubt — Sexual assault counts dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Mischief — Mens rea — Criminal Code, s. 430(4)(b) and s. 429 — Whether throwing the bird cage was “wilfully” causing damage — Video showed cage thrown with such force that breaking was plainly inevitable — Intention to break found, alternatively recklessness as to likely result — Recklessness satisfies “wilfully” — Guilty verdict entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Animal offences — “Wilfully” and causation — Criminal Code, s. 445.1(2)(b) and s. 429(1) — Whether the accused wilfully caused unnecessary pain, suffering or injury to the bird — Subjective knowledge or recklessness as to likely injury assessed, citing R v Picco — Bird in cage seen or likely present before throwing — Guilty verdict entered<br />Evidence — Expert evidence — Causation — Whether evidence of a veterinarian or other expert was necessary to prove causation — Video and surrounding circumstances considered with complainant’s evidence of the bird surviving one day then dying — No evidence of any alternate or intervening cause — Expert evidence not required in the circumstances — Causation found proved