Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-06-10 R. v. Tandon, 2026 ONCJ 343 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Refusal to comply with breath demand — Elements of offence — Whether the Crown proved a lawful demand and failure or refusal — Knowledge of demand established through English and Hindi explanations and demonstrations — No reasonable excuse raised — Burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt restated — Guilty verdict entered — Conviction entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Reasonable suspicion — ASD demand — Did the officer have reasonable suspicion the driver had alcohol in his body? — Abrupt lane changes and faint odour of alcohol from the vehicle — Threshold for suspicion low and assessed at roadside — Authorities cited, R. v. Rahmanian, R. v. Doyle, R. v. Mason — Demand lawful<br />Statutory interpretation — Criminal Code, s. 320.27(2) — Mandatory alcohol screening — Is express invocation of s. 320.27(2) required for a lawful demand? — Statutory preconditions only, ASD in possession, immediate demand to driver — Reasoning adopted from R. v. Rahmanian and R. v. Jerlo — Mandatory alcohol screening requirements met — Demand lawful<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — Police notes and body‑worn camera — Do notetaking deficiencies and timeline errors undermine reliability? — Disorganized notes and mistaken times acknowledged — Objective body‑worn camera footage corroborates demand, explanations, and refusal — Reliability concerns mitigated and officer’s core evidence accepted — Officer evidence accepted
• 2026-06-09 Halton (Regional Municipality) v. 2792814 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCJ 338 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Guilty pleas — Voluntariness — Whether the guilty plea was voluntary, unequivocal and informed — Plea inquiry addressing elements, waiver of trial rights and sentencing discretion — Application of R. v. Wong, 2018 SCC 25 and R. v. Gordon, 2025 ONCA 21 — No prejudice shown and credibility concerns with affidavits — Appeal as to conviction dismissed<br />Statutory interpretation — Municipal by-laws — Penalties — Municipal Act, 2001, s. 429 — Did s. 10 of By-Law No. 121-05 designate a multiple offence or special fine authorising per‑tree penalties? — “Per Tree” wording construed as multiple offence and special fine — Compliance with s. 429(3) caps confirmed — Statutory challenge to fine quantum rejected — Appeal on legality of fine dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Provincial Offences Act context — Was a $1,000,000 fine with rehabilitation and probation fit given parity and totality? — Deliberate clear‑cutting in Natural Heritage System treated as worst‑case facts — Parity distinguished on per‑tree amounts, totality satisfied, deference per R. v. Lacasse — Fitness of sentence upheld — Sentence appeal dismissed
• 2026-06-09 R. v. Phillips, 2026 ONCJ 333 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Impaired driving and driving while prohibited — Whether denunciation and deterrence prevail over rehabilitation — Criminal Code, s. 718 — Authorities applied, R. v. Lacasse, R. v. Wolynec — Extensive related record and lifetime prohibition emphasised — Two-year custodial term found fit — Sentence of two years’ imprisonment and two years’ probation imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Mitigating factors and mental health — Do PTSD, addiction and treatment efforts justify substantial mitigation? — Causation for mitigation not established, R. v. Fabro, R. v. Megill, R. v. Pioriello — Limited weight to hardship on family, R. v. D.B., R. v. L.C. — Guilty plea and recent efforts recognised — Mitigation limited<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Consecutive sentences — Are consecutive terms totalling two years proportionate for combined offences? — High moral blameworthiness and persistent breaches assessed — Public safety risk heightened by impaired driving history, R. v. Simeunovich, R. v. Lavergne — Proportionality and totality considered — Consecutive sentences confirmed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Probation and ancillary orders — Should probation, lifetime driving prohibition and surcharge waiver be ordered? — Probation to support programming for substance use and mental health — Lifetime driving prohibition imposed — Victim fine surcharge waived due to undue hardship — Ancillary orders imposed as crafted
• 2026-06-09 R. v. Adam, 2026 ONCJ 334 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sexual assault — Elements and mental fault — Intentional touching — Whether the accused intentionally touched complainants in a sexual manner without consent — Objective assessment of sexual nature considered — Consent and knowledge analysed under Ewanchuk and J.A. — Circumstantial inference under Villaroman applied — Similar fact evidence weighed with individual counts — Not guilty on all counts<br />Evidence — Similar fact evidence — Cross‑count admissibility — Presumptively inadmissible threshold and balancing under R. v. Handy and R. v. Ateyah — Do similarities in brief contact during examinations demonstrate situation‑specific propensity — Degree of similarity, distinctive features and connectedness assessed — Reasoning and moral prejudice minimized in judge‑alone trial — Admitted, limited use<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — W.(D.) framework — Whether complainants’ reliability establishes intent beyond reasonable doubt — Distinction between credibility and reliability applied — Inconsistencies, mechanics of examinations, contemporaneous records considered — Circumstantial proof and alternative inferences under Villaroman analysed — Accused’s consistent usual practice weighed — Reasonable doubt maintained<br />Evidence — Tainting — Independence of accounts — Whether media press release or prior information tainted complainants’ evidence — Air of reality to inadvertent tainting addressed — Independence proven on balance of probabilities under Handy factors — Lack of detailed public information noted — Similarities not product of influence — Independence established, impact reserved to weight
• 2026-06-09 R. v. Robinson, 2026 ONCJ 336 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Mandatory minimums and pre‑sentence credit — Whether Duncan credit can be applied alongside Summers when a minimum sentence governs — Interaction with R. v. Hilbach and R. v. Hilaire considered — Quantified enhanced credit treated as mitigation yet not reducing the statutory minimum itself — Sentence fixed at five years less Summers and Duncan — One further day to serve<br />Indigenous peoples — Gladue — Mandatory minimums — Effect of s. 718.2(e) where a fit sentence would fall below the minimum — Whether Indigeneity can reduce sentence under a mandatory minimum — R. v. Hilbach followed on limits of Gladue — Institutional disrespect for Indigenous culture considered separately as harsh custody — Gladue not a basis for reduction below minimum — Enhanced credit grounded in institutional conduct granted<br />Procedure — Stare decisis — Horizontal comity — Whether to follow the most recent coordinate decision on Duncan credit and minimums — R. v. Sullivan criteria applied — R. v. Hilaire distinguished due to unanticipated, egregious institutional conduct affecting custody conditions — Departure justified on narrow factual basis — Enhanced credit approach adopted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Harsh pre‑trial custody — Whether lockdowns, triple bunking, untreated injuries, and elimination of Indigenous range justify Duncan credit — Chronic, punitive conditions not attributable to the offender — Institutional removal of Indigenous artwork and items aggravating hardship — Substantial mitigation recognized — Additional 611 days of Duncan credit granted