Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-05-12 R. v. Tekeste, 2026 ONCJ 273 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Multiple convictions — Kienapple rule — Whether assault with a weapon must be stayed where aggravated assault involved the same knife — Elements substantially the same — Means of wounding with the knife found for aggravated assault — Conditional stay required to prevent multiple convictions — Assault with a weapon conditionally stayed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Aggravated assault — Proportionality under s. 718.1 with deterrence and denunciation predominant — Serious home attack using two weapons and head strikes — Probation breaches and recent violent record aggravating — Harsh PSC, addictions, health and support mitigating — Fit penitentiary term determined at five years — Five-years jail imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing credits — Pre-sentence custody — Application of s. 719(3) and R. v. Summers to calculate credit — Whether harsh PSC warrants additional deduction or mitigation — R. v. Marshall #1 clarifies Duncan credit as mitigating factor, not separate deduction — 377 days PSC equals 566 days credit — Harsh PSC considered in mitigation — Summers credit applied<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Consecutive or concurrent sentences — Totality — Whether probation breach sentences should be consecutive to aggravated assault — Totality principle applied per R. v. Ahmed and R. v. Jewell — Probation orders treated as aggravating in global fitness — Breach sentences made concurrent to reflect totality — Concurrent sentences ordered
• 2026-05-11 R. v. R.B., 2026 ONCJ 269 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Jurisdiction — State-funded complainant’s counsel — Whether the Ontario Court of Justice has jurisdiction to appoint counsel funded by the state in s. 278 applications — Vertical stare decisis applied to R. v. Smith, 2026 ONSC 40 — Doctrine of jurisdiction by necessary implication relied on — Parallel to amicus appointments considered — Jurisdiction affirmed — Application granted<br />Procedure — Discretion — Test for appointment — Orders “as a matter of course” unless they would interfere with the proper administration of justice — Are there exceptional circumstances to refuse an order appointing complainant’s counsel? — No interference with administration of justice found — Counsel named, Attorney General to fund, fee disputes to court — Order appointing state-funded counsel granted<br />Statutory interpretation — Necessary implication — Criminal Code scheme — How do statutory context and separation of powers limit inferring authority to mandate provincial spending? — Absence of express counsel-appointment provisions contrasted with ss. 486.3, 672.24 and YCJA s. 25 — Federalism and Crown immunity considerations noted — Despite reservations, bound by Smith — Jurisdiction affirmed<br />Procedure — Practice — Crown applications process — What procedural expectations govern applications to appoint complainant’s counsel? — Form 1 Notice to complainant, accused and any independent agency sought to be bound — Application returnable on the record — Evidence of complainant’s informed choice required — Caution re s. 650 presence — Guidance provided
• 2026-05-11 Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.P., 2026 ONCJ 270 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Child protection — Protection finding — Whether children are in need of protection under s. 74(2)(b)(i) — Risk of physical harm through failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect — Evidence of acute psychotic episode, substance use, inconsistent access and neglect — Flexible timing approach to protection findings applied — Children found in need of protection<br />Child protection — Necessity of order — Is intervention through a court order necessary to protect the children in the future under s. 101(1)? — Best interests under s. 74(3) considered, including needs, continuity and risk — Services provided and community options reviewed — Ongoing significant protection concerns established — Court order necessary<br />Child protection — Disposition and relocation — What disposition is in the children’s best interests, including relocation to Montreal and s. 122(5) extension? — Supervision order placing children with father assessed, Montreal CAS supervision available — CLRA s. 39.4 relocation factors considered — Extension of interim society care under s. 122(5) refused — Children placed with father in Montreal under supervision<br />Child protection — Access — What access orders for mother and sibling are in the children’s best interests under s. 104(1)? — Supervised access in society’s discretion with minimum monthly in-person and weekly virtual contact — Concerns with mother’s presentation and inconsistent attendance — Sibling relationship preserved on agreed terms — Supervised access ordered with specified minimums
• 2026-05-11 King v. Wilson, 2026 ONCJ 271 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Child support — Imputation of income — Whether to impute income to payor under the Child Support Guidelines — Drygala v. Pauli test applied — Union wage evidence and vocational opinion considered — Income imputed using 65 percent of union annualised wage, with adjustments — Specific annual incomes fixed for 2022 to 2026 — Child support set accordingly — Income imputed<br />Family — Child support — Commencement and credits — What is the start date for child support — Voluntary payments after separation examined against Guideline obligation — Commencement fixed at October 1, 2022 — Payor’s payments exceeded Guideline amount for part of 2022 — Credits reflected in arrears calculations — Start date fixed<br />Family — Special or extraordinary expenses — Proportionate contribution — Determination of section 7 share and arrears — Reasonableness and proof of payment accepted — Recipient’s income partly imputed — Payor to contribute 58 percent prospectively and higher share for earlier years — Ongoing conditions for notice, after-tax calculation and proof of payment set — Arrears ordered<br />Family — Spousal support — Entitlement and quantum — Is spousal support payable for the first two years post-separation — Entitlement recognised but no ability to pay on imputed incomes — Recipient’s additional unreported income found — Child support priority and financial resources considered — Spousal support denied — Claim dismissed
• 2026-05-08 R. v. Alexander, 2026 ONCJ 267 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Robbery and fail to stop — Fit sentence for a youthful first time offender — Degree of responsibility for assaultive behaviour but not firearm use — Denunciation and deterrence balanced with rehabilitation and guilty plea — s. 344(1)(b) and s. 320.17 considered — Probation and ancillary orders imposed — Sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Duncan/Marshall reduction — Whether harsh pre-sentencing custody warrants reduction — Maplehurst lock-downs and triple bunking quantified — R. v. Marshall, R. v. Duncan, R. v. Reid, R. v. Gorgievski applied — One-to-one methodology used without combined effect increment — Reduction fixed at 1.5 years — Reduction granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Summers credit — How to calculate credit for pre-trial custody — 419 days of custody at 1.5 basis — Credit computed as 1.7 years and deducted from custodial term — Post-reduction remainder identified as 9 months and 18 days — Credit applied<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Consecutive or concurrent terms — Should fail to stop be consecutive to robbery — Additional elements acknowledged but complete overlap with robbery circumstances — Three months imposed concurrent to robbery term — Concurrent sentence ordered