Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2026-07-14 R. v. Pestikov, 2026 ONCJ 412 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Over 80 — Care and control — Was the accused “operating” within s. 320.11 when seated in a running vehicle? — Realistic risk of danger required by Boudreault not established — Alternate plan to be picked up concrete and implemented — Vehicle running for warmth, safely parked at dealership — No post-consumption driving — Not guilty<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Presumptions — Criminal Code, s. 320.35 — Did the accused rebut the presumption of operation by occupying the driver’s seat? — Entry to keep warm while awaiting a friend — Crown concedes presumption rebutted — Occupancy not for the purpose of setting the vehicle in motion — Presumption displaced<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Care and control — Criminal Code, s. 320.11, R. v. Boudreault — Did the Crown prove circumstances creating a realistic risk of danger? — Plan to avoid driving corroborated by defence witness — Vehicle backed into commercial lot, engine on for warmth — No evidence of intent to drive or post-consumption driving — Realistic risk not proven — Not guilty<br />Evidence — Sufficiency of evidence — Degree of impairment — Was impairment sufficient to infer risk or intention to drive? — In-car camera showed no obvious slurring — Physical coordination and compliance noted — Breath readings admitted did not establish impairment at material time — Dishevelled appearance and fatigue innocently explained — Evidence insufficient
• 2026-07-10 R. v. Sinclair-Warwick, 2026 ONCJ 411 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired driving investigations — Reasonable and probable grounds — Whether officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest and to make a breath demand — Dispatch information from a concerned citizen treated as permissible hearsay — Observations of driving over grass, odour of alcohol, slurred speech, red glossy eyes, unsteadiness — Bush applied — Grounds subjectively and objectively established — Arrest upheld<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Refusal offences — Valid demand — Did the accused fail or refuse to comply with a valid breath demand under s. 320.15(1)? — Demand read from duty notebook and explained by qualified breath technician — Multiple opportunities and clear explanations provided — Unequivocal refusals captured on breath room video — Intention to refuse established by words and conduct — Conviction entered on Count 2<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired operation — Proof of impairment — Whether ability to operate was impaired to any degree by alcohol under s. 320.14(1)(a) — Lay observations and officer evidence accepted — Odour of alcohol from mouth, slurred speech, red glossy eyes, unsteady on feet — Reverse parking over grass noted — Stellato and Moreno-Baches framework applied — Guilty of impaired operation<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter rights on arrest — Right to counsel — Were s. 10(a) and s. 10(b) respected following arrest? — Information and caution provided promptly — Breath demand made as soon as practicable under s. 320.28 — Private, confidential call with counsel of choice facilitated — Informational and implementational duties satisfied — Charter compliance confirmed
• 2026-07-09 R. v. Tyagi, 2026 ONCJ 410 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired operation — Evidence of impairment — Whether ability was impaired by alcohol — Cumulative indicia assessed including prolonged dangerous driving, strong odour of alcohol, slurred speech, delayed responses and persistent non‑compliance — Stellato, Ramroop and Andrew applied — Only reasonable inference available was impairment — Finding based on pre‑breach evidence — Conviction entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Refusal to comply with breath demand — Essential elements — Whether the accused refused a lawful breath demand without reasonable excuse — Admissions of grounds, lawful demand and unequivocal refusal — Roadside and station video corroborating refusal — Guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt subject to Charter applications — Conviction entered<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 10(b) — Right to counsel — Implementational duty — Did the accused invoke the right to counsel triggering facilitation obligations? — Informational component satisfied, understanding found, no language barrier or genuine confusion — LaFrance, Baig, Sinclair and Owens applied — No waiver required absent invocation — Application dismissed<br />Procedure — Charter remedies — Stay of proceedings and exclusion — Whether excessive force contrary to s. 7 warranted a stay or exclusion under s. 24 — Babos framework applied, prejudice not persisting, alternative remedy available — Grant factors favour admission, breach brief and not egregious, evidence reliable and central — Sentence reduction appropriate — Stay refused and exclusion refused
• 2026-07-08 Solomon v. Grange, 2026 ONCJ 408 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Costs — Child support — Whether mother entitled to costs — Importance to parties and proportionality considered — Unreasonable conduct by father found, including non-disclosure and non-attendance — Reasonableness of rates accepted — Ability to pay considered with payment plan — Costs ordered<br />Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Do subrule 24(12) costs consequences apply? — Order as good as or better than offer — Close is not good enough — Full recovery of costs from date of offer — Costs consequences applied<br />Procedure — Costs — Technical requirements — Compliance with subrule 24(12) — Offer made in advance, not withdrawn, not accepted — Onus to show order as good as or better met — Technical requirements satisfied — Costs consequences under subrule 24(12) triggered<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum and conduct — Subrule 24(14) factors — Conduct that unduly complicates or lengthens proceeding — Breach of disclosure orders and filing directions — Reasonableness and proportionality applied — Ability to pay considered — Costs fixed with payment plan<br />Procedure — Costs — Full recovery — Whether full recovery costs ordered from date of offer — Mother receives costs until offer date and full recovery costs after — Reasonableness of time and rates accepted — Proportional approach under Family Law Rules applied — Costs partly full recovery
• 2026-07-08 R. v. Dedam, 2026 ONCJ 409 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Indigenous peoples — Sentencing of Indigenous persons — Criminal Code, ss. 718.2(e), 718.04 — How to reconcile Gladue considerations with prioritising denunciation and deterrence for violence against Indigenous women — Substantive equality lens applied, Gladue, Ipeelee and Barton considered — Distinct remedial purposes treated as complementary threads — Proportionality informed by reduced moral culpability and victim vulnerability — Custodial sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm — What sentence is proportionate for catastrophic, life‑altering injuries — Denunciation and deterrence paramount given traumatic brain injury and domestic violence — R. v. Brouillard, R. v. Bolan, Jocko, Wilson, and R. v. Rabbit applied — Conditional community disposition rejected — Three years two months concurrent and consecutive structure fixed — Custodial sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Pre‑sentence custody credit — How to apply credit for time served in provincial institutions — Summers credit awarded for pre‑trial custody, with additional Duncan credit for harsh conditions and lockdowns — Residual custodial term calculated and stated on record — DNA order and s. 109 prohibition addressed as ancillary matters — Pre‑sentence credit awarded<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Restitution — Should stand‑alone restitution orders issue for victims’ treatment and supports — Documentary gaps considered alongside severe, ongoing deficits and assistive needs — Court satisfied orders warranted despite limited materials — Restitution amounts fixed for each complainant to address financial stressors — Restitution ordered