Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-08-24 R. v. Daley, 2026 ONCJ 511 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Assault causing bodily harm — Whether conditional sentence order is fit rather than jail — Sentencing guided by Criminal Code, ss. 718 to 718.2 — Denunciation and deterrence weighed against rehabilitation and restraint — Conditional sentence order imposed with probation<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing factors — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Unprovoked attack from behind on vulnerable victim — Bodily harm impact treated as aggravating — No criminal record, mental health treatment, housing stability, and “Morris factors” considered — Conditional sentence order imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Conditional sentence — Criminal Code, s. 742.1 — Whether statutory pre-conditions for conditional sentence order are met — Whether offender poses danger to the community that conditions cannot address — R. v. Proulx applied to punitive and rehabilitative objectives — Conditional sentence order granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — DNA and weapons prohibition — Whether DNA sample order is appropriate — Whether weapons prohibition under Criminal Code, s. 110 should be made — Community-based conditions include no contact and distance terms — DNA order and s. 110 prohibition made
• 2026-08-21 R. v. P.G., 2026 ONCJ 504 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Sexual offences against children — Proportionality and s. 718.01 — Whether denunciation and deterrence take primary consideration for offences under ss. 271, 151, 152 — Reliance on R. v. Friesen and Lacasse — Harm to very young victim and multiple incidents assessed — Mid single‑digit penitentiary terms endorsed — Penitentiary term of 5.5 years imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Aggravating factors — Position of trust or authority — Whether offender stood in a position of trust toward the child — Aird factors considered, thin evidentiary record of control and expectations — Some household role acknowledged but not sufficient for trust or authority — Gravity otherwise undiminished by finding — Position of trust not found<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Pre‑sentence custody credit — Enhanced credit under Duncan — Whether exceptionally punitive remand conditions justify additional credit — Lockdowns, triple and quadruple bunking, vermin and unsanitary conditions at SDJ and CNCC — Distress and deprivation beyond normal remand considered with Summers — Additional 274 days of Duncan credit awarded<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Multiple convictions — Kienapple principle — Whether multiple convictions barred by factual and legal nexus — Distinct transactions and elements for ss. 271, 151, 152 identified — Separate sentencing on each count warranted — Lead count designated with concurrent terms on others — Separate concurrent sentences on each count
• 2026-08-21 R. v. H.A., 2026 ONCJ 486 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional sentence breaches — Appropriate disposition under s. 742.6(9) of the Criminal Code — Graduated range of responses outlined — Whether termination and custody for balance are warranted — Breaches of strict house arrest found deliberate and unexplained — Objectives of denunciation and deterrence prioritized — Conditional sentence order terminated<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Presumption on breach — Whether presumption that the balance be served in custody applies and is rebutted — Proulx and Antaya considered — Integrity of conditional sentence regime and public confidence stressed — Wilful non-compliance with home confinement and GPS conditions — Presumption engaged and not rebutted — Order for committal confirmed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Proportionality — Whether termination disproportionate given seriousness, time served, and objectives — Original offences exceptionally serious with multiple aggravating factors — Time in custody and family separation considered but not determinative — Denunciation and specific and general deterrence necessitated termination — Resulting sanction found not disproportionate — Conditional sentence terminated and balance to be served in custody
• 2026-08-21 R. v. Hanna, 2026 ONCJ 501 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Jordan framework — Calculation of gross and net delay — Does the net delay exceed the 18‑month presumptive ceiling? — Framework from R. v. Jacques‑Taylor and R. v. Vrbanic applied — Deductions for defence‑attributed periods computed under Shaikh and Chung — Net delay 526 days, under ceiling — Application dismissed<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Defence delay — Attribution for CPT and JPT scheduling and resolution track — Whether adjournments to await disclosure and pursue resolution constitute defence delay — Counsel’s postponement of trial scheduling despite approved estimate — Periods for aborted CPT and resolution discussions deducted per Chung — Stay refused<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Discrete exceptional circumstances — Whether re‑arrest and bail proceedings are deductible — Accused re‑arrested on separate charges, bail addressed under Criminal Code ss. 523 and 524 — Event reasonably unforeseeable and unavoidable — Thirty‑day period deducted as discrete exceptional circumstance — Application dismissed<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Under‑the‑ceiling stay — Should a stay be granted despite presumptively reasonable delay? — Requirement for meaningful steps showing a sustained effort to expedite from Jordan — Multiple unnecessary defence‑caused delays undermine claim — Case did not take markedly longer than it should have — Stay refused
• 2026-08-21 R. v. Mercier, 2026 ONCJ 502 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional sentence — CDSA, s. 5(2) — Is a conditional sentence available and appropriate for possession for the purpose of trafficking? — History of non‑compliance and elevated risk to reoffend — Lack of treatment plan and fluid residence — Community sentence found inappropriate — Conditional sentence refused<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Fentanyl trafficking — Appropriate range for mid‑level trafficker — R. v. Parranto, R. v. Lynch, R. v. Loor considered — Aggravating factors included quantity, record, being on release, dangerous cutting agent — Guilty plea mitigating — Moral culpability high — Five‑year penitentiary sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Firearms prohibition and DNA — Should ancillary orders including a s. 109 order, a DNA order, and forfeiture be imposed? — Mid‑level, addicted trafficker with prior record — Trafficking involving dangerous benzodiazepine‑cut fentanyl — Public safety and identification objectives engaged — Ancillary orders made<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Presentence custody credit — How should presentence custody and enhanced credit be applied to the custodial term? — Presentence custody accrued and enhanced credit identified — Net custodial term calculated — Balance of sentence determined as remaining days in custody — Credit applied and balance fixed at 1610 days