Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2025-05-13 R. v. Kinsella, 2025 ONCJ 265 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Assault causing bodily harm — Self-defence — Defence of another — Defendants charged with multiple counts of assault causing bodily harm — Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' actions were not in lawful self-defence or defence of another — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 34 — Framework for self-defence under R. v. Khill, 2021 SCC 37<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability of witnesses — Video evidence — Complainants and independent witnesses provided conflicting testimony — Trial judge found complainants' testimony unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies — Video evidence deemed most reliable — Whether the testimony of the complainants and witnesses was credible and reliable in light of the video evidence<br />Criminal procedure — Self-defence — Legal framework — Application of section 34 of the Criminal Code — Trial judge applied the three-part test for self-defence: reasonable belief of force, subjective purpose to protect, and reasonableness of actions — Consideration of factors under section 34(2) — Whether the trial judge properly applied the legal framework for self-defence and defence of another
• 2025-05-12 R. v. Vernaza-Vinces, 2025 ONCJ 257 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Directed verdict — Application for acquittal — Accused charged with flight from a police officer under section 320.17 of the Criminal Code — Whether the Crown presented sufficient evidence to establish all elements of the offense — Application for directed verdict dismissed — Ample evidence of required elements found — Framework for directed verdict applications<br />Statutory interpretation — Criminal Code — Section 320.17 — Flight from a police officer — Whether section 320.17 requires the Crown to prove that police were operating a motor vehicle while pursuing the accused — Parliament removed this requirement from the provision — Statutory interpretation principles applied — No such requirement exists under section 320.17<br />Evidence — Directed verdict — Sufficiency of evidence — Accused fled from police on foot and later in a vehicle — Crown presented evidence of all required elements of the offense — Whether the evidence was sufficient to proceed to trial — Directed verdict application dismissed — Test for sufficiency of evidence in directed verdict applications
• 2025-05-12 Norfolk (County) v. Jerome, 2025 ONCJ 258 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Construction — Building Code Act — Offences under sections 8(1) and 12(2) — Limitation periods — Whether offences are continuing offences — Doctrine of discoverability — Does the one-year limitation period under section 36(8) apply to offences under the BCA? — Offences under sections 8(1) and 12(2) are not continuing offences — Limitation period begins on the date of discovery — Building Code Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 23<br />Civil procedure — Provincial Offences Act — Amendment of information — Pre-trial motions — Whether the court can amend offence dates and correct technical defects under section 34 of the POA at the pre-trial stage — Court has jurisdiction to amend information at any stage of proceedings — Amendments must not prejudice the defence — Provincial Offences Act, RSO 1990, c P.33<br />Evidence — Information validity — Jurat signature — Whether the lack of a jurat signature renders the information a nullity — Substance over form — Endorsement of the statement by the justice sufficient to validate the information — Technical defects do not invalidate proceedings — Provincial Offences Act, RSO 1990, c P.33, s.23(1.2)<br />Municipalities — Building Code Act — Limitation periods — Continuing offences — Whether offences under sections 8(1) and 12(2) of the BCA are continuing offences — Doctrine of discoverability incorporated into section 36(8) of the BCA — Limitation period based on discovery date, not the nature of the offence — Building Code Act, 1992, SO 1992, c 23
• 2025-05-12 R. v. Belk, 2025 ONCJ 259 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Not criminally responsible (NCR) — Attempted murder — Mental disorder — Accused stabbed her husband while in a dreamlike state and hearing voices — Joint submission for NCR finding — Did the accused meet the criteria for NCR under section 16 of the Criminal Code? — Judicial determination required — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 16<br />Health — Mental disorder — Major Neurocognitive Disorder — Symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and vascular disease — Accused experienced hallucinations and disorientation — Did the accused’s mental disorder render her incapable of knowing her actions were morally wrong? — Expert psychiatric opinion accepted — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 16<br />Evidence — Expert evidence — Forensic psychiatric assessment — Accused reported hearing voices and acting in a confused state — Expert opinion confirmed cognitive impairments and disorientation — Did the evidence support the accused’s claim of being unable to appreciate the nature and quality of her actions? — Expert evidence unchallenged and accepted<br />Statutory interpretation — Disposition of NCR accused — Ontario Review Board — Court deferred disposition to the Ontario Review Board under section 672.47 of the Criminal Code — Should the court impose a disposition or defer to the Ontario Review Board? — Disposition hearing required within 45 days — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 672.47
• 2025-05-12 R. v. Piccin, 2025 ONCJ 261 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Conditional discharge — Offender convicted of impaired operation of a conveyance with a blood alcohol concentration of 447mg/100mL — Whether a conditional discharge is appropriate given the offender’s rehabilitation efforts and public interest considerations — Denunciation and deterrence prioritized over rehabilitation — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 320.14(1), 320.19(1)(a)(i), 730<br />Criminal infractions — Impaired operation — Extreme blood alcohol concentration — Offender arrested with a blood alcohol concentration of 447mg/100mL in a residential area — Aggravating factors include extreme intoxication and public safety risks — Mitigating factors include guilty plea, rehabilitation, and family support — Minimum fine of $2,000 imposed — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 320.14(1)<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Mandatory minimum penalties — Offender challenged the constitutionality of s. 320.19(1)(a)(i) of the Criminal Code, arguing the $1,000 minimum fine is grossly disproportionate and violates the Charter — Court declined to address the constitutional issue as a conditional discharge was not granted — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 12 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 320.19(1)(a)(i)<br />Transportation — Public safety — Impaired driving — Offender found in a residential area near a school with extreme blood alcohol levels — Court emphasized the importance of public safety and deterrence in sentencing impaired drivers — Driving prohibition of one year imposed — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 320.12, 320.24