Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-02-02 Felix Perez v. Samuel, 2026 ONCJ 53 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Bad faith under Family Law Rules — Whether father acted in bad faith under subrule 24(10) — Conscious concealment of income and catch‑me‑if‑you‑can disclosure — Misstatements about employment and non‑compliance with trial directions — Full recovery basis and immediate payment mandated — Costs ordered on full recovery basis, payable immediately<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum and proportionality — Reasonableness under subrule 24(14) in a half‑day hearing — Time spent, behaviour, rates and offers considered — Self‑represented attendances at First Appearance Court and case conferences addressed — Ability to pay weighed against unreasonable conduct — Costs fixed at $12,500 inclusive of fees, disbursements and HST<br />Family — Support enforcement — Director, Family Responsibility Office — Can costs be enforced as a support order under s. 1(1)(g) of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996? — All legal work attributable to child support issue — Characterisation of costs as support order confirmed — Enforceable by Director ordered
• 2026-02-02 R. v. Rathore, 2026 ONCJ 51 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Large-scale commercial fraud — What is the appropriate sentence for large-scale commercial fraud under s. 380? — Denunciation and general deterrence emphasized, R. v. Drabinsky cited — Range discussed with Plange and Davatgar-Jafarpour — Aggravating and mitigating factors assessed — Not a Ponzi scheme, but direct link to losses found — Penitentiary sentence of 5 years imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Quantification of loss — How should the gross amount and outstanding loss be quantified for sentencing? — Investors misled as to value, risk of loss became actual — Gross amount at least $33.1 million, reductions for interest and civil recovery — Outstanding loss slightly more than $24.4 million established beyond reasonable doubt — Loss set at slightly more than $24.4 million<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional sentence eligibility — Is a conditional sentence available in light of s. 380(1.1) of the Criminal Code? — Amount of loss far surpasses $1 million threshold — Minimum punishment of 2 years incarceration engaged — Conditional sentences of two years less a day not available — Conditional sentence unavailable<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Ancillary orders — What ancillary orders should be imposed, including fine in lieu, prohibition, DNA and restitution? — DNA order made — Fine in lieu of forfeiture of $12,200,000 each, 5-year default incarceration, 10 years to pay — Prohibition order under s. 380.2 for 10 years — Restitution to be determined and credited — Orders made
• 2026-01-28 R. c. Makowe, 2026 ONCJ 40 (CanLII)
  Key Words: accusé — échantillons d haleine — alcool — affaiblie par l effet — doute raisonnable
• 2026-01-28 Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council v. Jover, 2026 ONCJ 45 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Provincial offences — Unregistered motor vehicle dealer — Whether the accused acted as a motor vehicle dealer when not registered — Advertising, undercover buyers, multiple sales over months — Offence under Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, s. 32 — Date, identity, jurisdiction and non‑registration proven — Pattern of trading established — Convictions entered on five counts, one acquittal<br />Statutory interpretation — Motor Vehicle Dealers Act — s. 5 exemption — Does the s. 5 exemption apply where vehicles were not used primarily for personal use? — Actual use rather than intention applied — Speed of listings and profit motive considered — Use incidental to trading for profit — Exemption inapplicable — Convictions entered<br />Statutory interpretation — Consumer Protection Act — ss. 14(1), 17(1), 116(1)(b)(ii) — Did the accused make false, misleading or deceptive representations? — Application to persons and not only suppliers — Inducement not required — Misstatements about ownership duration before and after sale — Elements of unfair practice proven — Conviction entered<br />Evidence — Credibility — Pattern of trading — Are the explanations for acquisitions and sales credible? — Undercover OMVIC and civilian testimony accepted — Accused’s statements inconsistent with records — Common sense assessment of rapid listings and profit — Pattern of trading for profit found — Convictions entered on five counts, one acquittal
• 2026-01-27 R. v. Holder, 2026 ONCJ 42 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Self-defence — Criminal Code, s. 34 — Whether the Crown disproved self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt — Air of reality established under Cinous — Khill framework for catalyst, motive and response applied — Elements not made out on the evidence — Self-defence negatived — Guilty of assault causing bodily harm<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Self-defence — Elements — Did the accused reasonably believe force was being used or threatened and act to protect? — Modified objective standard in Khill — Remote verbal threat I will kill you suka — No imminence and no weapon observed — Motive to protect not disproven — Belief of threat unreasonable — Guilty of assault causing bodily harm<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Self-defence — Reasonableness of response — s. 34(1)(c) — Was the act reasonable in the circumstances? — s. 34(2) factors assessed — Role in the incident and reckless escalation of risk — Disproportionate force while maintaining superior position — Community norms in Khill considered — Response unreasonable — Guilty of assault causing bodily harm<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — CCTV recording — Credibility framework applied including inconsistencies and corroboration — Independent balcony witness accepted — Video without sound and partial obstruction weighed — Photographs consistent with striking on the ground — Key testimony rejected where inconsistent with video — Findings of fact adverse to self-defence — Conviction entered