Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-08-14 R. v. Plazas Castillo, 2026 ONCJ 479 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Refusal to comply with breath demand — Elements of offence — Whether detainee understood the demand and immediacy requirement — R. v. Degiorgio applied to s. 320.15(1) and s. 320.27 — Torsney and Breault on forthwith or immediately — Multiple denials of understanding on body‑worn camera — No proof beyond a reasonable doubt that demand was understood — Not guilty<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Language barriers — Translator request — Language may be a barrier to an understanding of the demand — Finding that detainee clearly said translator on body‑worn camera — Formal language of demand and explanations considered — Noisy highway and brief, stressful interaction compounding difficulty — Understanding of immediacy not established — Acquittal entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Police duties — Inquiries into comprehension — Obligation to make reasonable inquiries into extent of English ability — R. v. Burko considered — Officer did not ask detainee’s language or arrange interpreter — No request to explain back understanding in own words — Reliance on apparent understanding insufficient on this record — Charge dismissed
• 2026-08-12 R. v. Scapillati, 2026 ONCJ 474 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Non-consensual distribution of intimate images — Whether a conditional sentence is appropriate under s. 742.1 — Denunciation and deterrence as primary objectives under ss. 718 and 718.2 — Aggravating factors including breach of trust and former intimate partner — Guilty plea and restraint considered — Range reviewed, including R. v. Ha and R. v. Weedon — Conditional sentence refused — Ten-month jail sentence with probation and DNA order imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing orders — SOIRA order — Whether the presumption under s. 490.012(3) is rebutted where Crown proceeds summarily and victim is over 18 — Factors under s. 490.012(4) considered, including nature and seriousness and relationship — Guidance from R. v. Eldon on high threshold — Connection to prevention and investigation established — Impact not grossly disproportionate — SOIRA order for ten years made
• 2026-08-10 R. v. Gowers, 2026 ONCJ 473 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Dangerous offender — Serious personal injury offence — Criminal Code, s. 753(1)(a) — Whether criminal harassment constituted conduct endangering life or safety or likely to inflict severe psychological damage — Victim impact statement weighed under s. 722(8) — Delusional voicemail ranting, no specific targeting found — Threshold not met — Dangerous offender application dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Dangerous offender — Pattern of repetitive or persistent behaviour — Criminal Code, s. 753(1)(a)(i) and (ii) — Whether index offence forms part of a pattern of repetitive or persistent aggressive behaviour — Prior harassment of known partners contrasted with anonymous voicemails — No proof of marked targeting of female victims — Reasonable doubt on pattern — Dangerous offender application dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Intractability and risk — Boutilier applied — Whether conduct is substantially or pathologically intractable and highly likely to reoffend — Treatability through antipsychotic medication and Community Treatment Orders considered — External structure can control risk in community — High untreated risk but controllable with supervision — Dangerous offender application dismissed<br />Procedure — Sentencing — Disputed facts at sentencing — Criminal Code, s. 724(3) — What burden applies where aggravating facts are disputed and earlier plea facts proved erroneous — Crown must prove aggravating facts beyond a reasonable doubt — Reliance on inaccurate plea narrative refused — Targeting of victim and post‑February messages not proven — Disputed aggravating facts rejected
• 2026-08-07 Lorenzo Cuevas v. Marques, 2026 ONCJ 472 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Whether the mother’s offer attracted subrule 24(12) costs consequences — Offer included full recovery costs term and short acceptance window — Non‑compliance with subrules 18(4) and 24(12) strictly applied — Offer not as good as or better than the result — Costs consequences under rule 24(12) denied<br />Procedure — Costs — Entitlement — Subrule 24(3) presumption of costs to successful party — Who succeeded based on positions at the motion — Mother obtained primary residence and decision‑making responsibility and support — Father did not rebut presumption — Is the mother entitled to her costs as the successful party — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum — Subrule 24(14) factors, unreasonable conduct under subrule 24(7) — Failures to meet timelines and provide disclosure, partial support compliance — Reasonableness, proportionality and ability to pay considered, hourly rate reasonable — Integrity of the justice system and elevated costs discussed — What amount of costs is reasonable — Costs fixed at $10,000 inclusive<br />Procedure — Costs — Enforcement and payment — Ability to pay addressed with instalment structure — Payment of $500 each month ordered starting on a specified date — Requirement to keep costs and child support in good standing — Acceleration if more than 30 days late after start date — Instalment payment terms with acceleration ordered
• 2026-08-06 Filazzola v. Beecher-Elliott, 2026 ONCJ 464 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Entitlement — Presumption under subrule 24(3) in favour of successful party — Was the mother successful on the motion to change child support? — Success assessed against positions advanced and relief sought — Divided success and apportionment under subrule 24(4) considered — Presumption not rebutted — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum assessment — Family Law Rules, subrule 24(14) — How should proportionality, importance, and offers to settle inform the amount? — Offer not as good as final order but relevant to reasonableness — Time and rates reviewed and found reasonable — Complexity modest — Costs fixed<br />Procedure — Costs — Unreasonable conduct — Duty of financial disclosure — Did unreasonable positions and deficient disclosure warrant costs consequences? — Failure to disclose cash income and sources identified — Deliberate unemployment or underemployment found — Conduct burdened court resources and impeded progress — Sanction through costs appropriate — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Ability to pay — Structuring payment — Should ability to pay influence quantification and payment terms? — Income imputed and capacity to pay assessed — Reasonable expectation of costs addressed — Instalment plan ordered with acceleration on default for arrears — Costs payable by instalments