Decisions

A collection of judgments of the Ontario Court of Justice, primarily released after April 1, 2004, is posted on CanLII. The CanLII website is not an exhaustive source of judgments of the Ontario Court of Justice. The official version of the reasons for judgment is the signed original or handwritten endorsement in the court file. In the event that there is a question about the content of a judgment, the original in the court file takes precedence.

Judgments are available in the language provided.

Copies of judgments of the Ontario Court of Justice can be obtained by contacting the respective court office where the matter was heard. A photocopy charge is payable. Judgments are also available on a number of subscription based services such as LexisNexis® QuicklawTM and WestlawNext® Canada.

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

  • 2025-06-02 R. v. Wanner, 2025 ONCJ 299 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Criminal procedure — Detention — Charter rights — Psychological detention — Police conduct at accident scene — When did the police detain the accused? — Whether the accused was detained before the screening demand — Evidentiary burden on the accused to establish psychological detention — R. v. Grant framework applied — No detention found before the screening demand — Charter ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Unlawful breath demands — Immediacy requirements under s. 320.27(1) of the Criminal Code — Did the police comply with the immediacy requirements for screening demands? — Inconsistencies in officer testimony regarding grounds for demand — Screening demand found unlawful — Charter ss. 8, 9 — R. v. Woods applied<br />Constitution — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — Section 24(2) analysis — Should the results of the breath samples be excluded due to Charter breaches? — Seriousness of police misconduct, impact on accused’s rights, and societal interest in adjudication on the merits — Evidence admitted — R. v. Grant, R. v. McColman applied<br />Criminal infractions — Proof of identity — Circumstantial evidence — Reasonable doubt — Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver? — Circumstantial evidence analyzed under R. v. Villaroman — Alternative theories ruled implausible — Identity of the driver proven beyond a reasonable doubt
  • 2025-05-30 R. v. Kroll, 2025 ONCJ 296 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Criminal infractions — Impaired operation — Drug impairment — Accused charged with impaired operation of a conveyance under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code — Evidence of erratic behaviour, drug recognition evaluation, and toxicology report — Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a conveyance was impaired by drugs? — Standard of proof for impaired operation by drugs under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code<br />Evidence — Possession of controlled substances — Methamphetamine — Accused found with methamphetamine in jacket pocket — Certificate of Analyst confirming substance as methamphetamine — Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed methamphetamine? — Knowledge and control as essential elements of possession under s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act<br />Evidence — Drug recognition evaluation — Toxicology — Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence — Drug recognition evaluator's opinion corroborated by toxicology report — Urine sample containing methamphetamine and GHB — Expert evidence on drug effects and impairment — Was the evidence sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? — Framework for assessing circumstantial evidence and expert testimony in criminal cases<br />Criminal procedure — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Crown's reliance on circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, and statutory presumptions — Did the Crown meet its burden of proof for both charges? — Application of s. 320.31(6) of the Criminal Code regarding drug impairment and toxicology corroboration
  • 2025-05-30 R. v. Bhandal, 2025 ONCJ 297 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Criminal infractions — Impaired driving — Operation of a motor vehicle — Circumstantial evidence — Defendant found alone in a crashed vehicle, impaired, with blood on the driver’s airbag — Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver — Standard for circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman applied — Crown established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under section 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Blood evidence — Deployment of airbags — Defendant’s location in the vehicle — Whether circumstantial evidence excluded all reasonable alternatives to the defendant being the driver — Court rejected speculative theories of another driver escaping — Standard for circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman applied<br />Criminal procedure — Breath demand — Reasonable and probable grounds — Police observations at the scene — Defendant’s impairment, blood on driver’s airbag, and lack of other occupants — Whether police belief that the defendant was the driver was objectively reasonable — Standard for reasonable grounds from R. v. Storrey and R. v. Chehil applied — Breath demand found valid under section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code
  • 2025-05-30 R. v. Smith-Stebbins, 2025 ONCJ 298 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Statutory interpretation — Highway Traffic Act — Criminal Code — Interpretation of "public place" under section 320.24(8) — Whether section 12(1)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act applies to private parking lots — Whether a hotel parking lot constitutes a "public place" under section 320.24(8) — Modern approach to statutory interpretation applied — Provisions interpreted in context of public safety and accessibility<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Sections 8 and 9 — Arbitrary detention — Search and seizure — Whether stop in private parking lot for Highway Traffic Act offense was lawful — Application of R v McColman and R v Hajivasilis — No breach of sections 8 or 9 found — Highway Traffic Act provisions not limited to highways<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 320.24(8) — Public place — Criminal Code driving prohibition — Whether hotel parking lot constitutes a "public place" — Interpretation of "public place" as areas with public access and potential safety risks — Crown evidence sufficient to establish public access to parking lot<br />Criminal procedure — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) — Right to counsel — Failure to provide right to counsel advice a third time at roadside — Minor technical breach found — No evidence obtained in a manner engaging section 24(2) — Breach did not impact accused's interests — Evidence not excluded
  • 2025-05-29 Dey v. Cronk, 2025 ONCJ 294 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Family — Parenting orders — Material change in circumstances — Motion to vary parenting time and decision-making arrangements under the Children's Law Reform Act — Whether a material change in circumstances was established — Material change found due to the child's age, parental conflict, and lack of a specific parenting schedule in the original order — Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 29<br />Family — Best interests of the child — Parenting time — Whether additional overnight parenting time during the school week is in the child's best interests — Court declined to extend parenting time due to parental conflict, lack of communication, and the child's expressed preferences — Emphasis on stability and minimizing transitions during the school week — Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24(2)<br />Family — Parental conflict — Protective orders — Court imposed additional orders to limit parental conflict and shield the child from exposure to disputes — Orders included restrictions on communication, transportation responsibilities, and prohibitions on discussing litigation with the child — Focus on reducing conflict and ensuring the child's emotional well-being<br />Evidence — Voice of the Child Report — Weight of child's views and preferences — Child expressed a desire to maintain primary residence with the mother but spend more time with the father — Court gave significant weight to the child's views as expressed in the Voice of the Child Report, finding them clear, independent, and consistent — Report prepared by an experienced clinician following best practices
Ontario Court of Justice