Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2025-06-18 D.E.S.A. v. N.B., 2025 ONCJ 335 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Parenting issues — Decision-making responsibility — Parenting time — Success on parenting issues divided between the parties — Assessment of dominant issues and divided success — Framework for determining success in family law cases — Subrule 24(3) presumption of costs entitlement for successful party — Subrule 24(4) allowing apportionment of costs for divided success — Governing principles from Lazare v. Heitner, 2018 ONSC 4861, and Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556<br />Family — Child support — Retroactive support — Imputed income — Section 7 expenses — Success on child support issues divided — Mother slightly more successful — Imputation of income to father for 2024 and 2025 — Retroactive support ordered starting October 1, 2021 — Shared parenting arrangement affecting support obligations — Subrule 24(3) presumption of costs entitlement rebutted by unreasonable conduct<br />Civil procedure — Costs in family law — Principles of reasonableness and proportionality — Offers to settle — Subrule 24(12) costs consequences for failure to accept offers — Neither party's offer met the threshold for costs consequences — Governing principles from Mattina v. Mattina, 2018 ONCA 867, and Wilson v. Kovalev, 2016 ONSC 163<br />Civil procedure — Unreasonable conduct — Impact on costs — Mother's unreasonable conduct rebutting presumption of costs entitlement — Unilateral decisions, abusive communications, and non-compliance with court orders — Conduct unduly lengthening trial and increasing costs — Governing principles from Weber v. Weber, 2020 ONSC 6855, and Jackson v. Mayerle, 2016 ONSC 1556<br />Civil procedure — Costs determination — Discretionary nature of costs awards — Factors under subrule 24(14) of the Family Law Rules — Reasonableness of legal fees, offers to settle, and party behaviour — No costs awarded to either party due to divided success and unreasonable conduct
• 2025-06-16 R. v. Mohammed, 2025 ONCJ 331 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Accessory after the fact — Manslaughter — Sentencing — Offender pleaded guilty to being an accessory after the fact to manslaughter — What is the appropriate sentence considering the principles of sentencing, including denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restraint? — Sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the offender’s degree of responsibility — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2<br />Statutory interpretation — Sentencing principles — Conditional sentences — Application of section 742.1 of the Criminal Code — Does the offender meet the statutory prerequisites for a conditional sentence? — Offence not excluded from conditional sentencing — Sentence less than two years imposed — Conditional sentence consistent with sentencing principles — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 742.1<br />Criminal procedure — Conditional sentences — Community safety — Offender’s low risk of reoffending — Whether a conditional sentence endangers community safety — Offender’s compliance with strict bail conditions and rehabilitative efforts considered — Conditional sentence deemed appropriate — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 742.1<br />Evidence — Mitigating and aggravating factors — Sentencing — Offender’s cooperation, remorse, and prior conduct — Offender’s guilty plea, remorse, and cooperation with authorities considered mitigating — Aggravating factors include the offender’s assistance to the principal offender and the impact on the victim’s family — Sentencing principles balanced to reflect these factors — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 718.2<br />Criminal procedure — Credit for time served — Bail conditions — Offender spent nine days in custody and 22 months under strict bail conditions — Credit applied to reduce the notional sentence — Calculation of net sentence based on pre-sentence custody and bail conditions — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 719; R. v. Summers, 2014 SCC 26
• 2025-06-16 R. v. Foran, 2025 ONCJ 332 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Approved Screening Device (ASD) tests — Lawfulness of second ASD test — Accused stopped after exiting liquor store — First ASD test resulted in "Fail" — Second ASD test conducted without new demand — Was the second ASD test lawful under the Criminal Code? — Police actions justified to ensure accuracy of initial test results — Criminal Code, s. 320.14(1)(b)<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Unlawful search and seizure — Second ASD test conducted without a new demand — Defence argued second test was unlawful — Was the second ASD test a violation of section 8 of the Charter? — No breach found as second test conducted for accused’s benefit to ensure accuracy<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) — Right to counsel — Second ASD test conducted after right to counsel advice but before access to counsel — Defence argued breach of section 10(b) — Did the second ASD test violate the accused’s right to counsel? — No breach found as police were not eliciting incriminating evidence<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) — Counsel of choice — Accused alleged police "steered" him to duty counsel — Defence argued breach of section 10(b) right to counsel of choice — Was the accused’s right to counsel of choice violated? — Evidence insufficient to prove breach — Police fulfilled implementation duty based on accused’s statements<br />Evidence — Breath tests — Approved instrument tests — Accused’s blood alcohol concentration measured at 247mgs and 232mgs — Defence challenged lawfulness of arrest and tests — Were the arrest and evidentiary breath tests conducted lawfully? — Arrest and tests found lawful — Reasonable suspicion and grounds for arrest established
• 2025-06-16 Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Training and Skills Development) v. New Leaf, 2025 ONCJ 333 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Workplace health and safety — Sentencing — Corporate liability — Non-profit organization — Worker fatality — Corporation found guilty of failing to take reasonable precautions under OHSA — Aggravating factors include worker death and foreseeable risks — Mitigating factors include financial constraints and service impact — Appropriate fine determined based on proportionality and deterrence — OHSA, s. 25(2)(h), s. 25(1)(a)<br />Workplace health and safety — Sentencing — Individual supervisor liability — Worker fatality — Supervisor found guilty of failing to take reasonable precautions under OHSA — Aggravating factors include moral blameworthiness and worker death — Mitigating factors include exemplary antecedents, remorse, and mental health impact — Fine imposed instead of incarceration — OHSA, s. 27(2)(c)<br />Workplace health and safety — Sentencing principles — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Worker fatality — Balancing deterrence, proportionality, and financial impact on service delivery — Non-profit organization facing financial constraints — No reduction in fines for post-offence compliance — OHSA sentencing framework<br />Statutory interpretation — Restitution — OHSA — Whether restitution or fines can be directed to the family of a deceased worker — Court lacks jurisdiction to order restitution or direct fines to the family under OHSA provisions in effect at the time — Suggestion for legislative amendment — OHSA, s. 66
• 2025-06-16 R. v. Robitaille, 2025 ONCJ 336 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Assault causing bodily harm — Intentional or reckless application of force — Accused kicked a volleyball, striking the complainant in the face and causing injuries — Whether the accused’s actions were deliberate or reckless, or merely accidental — Mens rea for assault causing bodily harm includes recklessness — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 265(1)<br />Evidence — Intent and recklessness — Accused kicked a volleyball with significant force toward a group of people, striking the complainant — Witnesses testified to the force of the kick and proximity of the group — Whether circumstantial evidence supports intent or recklessness — Mens rea requires that the risk of bodily harm was either intended or objectively foreseeable<br />Evidence — Foreseeability of harm — Accused kicked a volleyball toward a group of seated individuals, causing significant injury to the complainant — Whether the risk of bodily harm was an objectively foreseeable consequence of the accused’s conduct — Test for foreseeability of harm in assault causing bodily harm<br />Criminal procedure — Intoxication — General intent offences — Accused appeared intoxicated at the time of the incident — Whether intoxication provides a defence to the general intent offence of assault causing bodily harm — Intoxication not a defence for general intent offences — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 265(1)