Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2025-12-18 R. v. Walker, 2025 ONCJ 679 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Evidence — Video identification — Nikolovski test — Whether clear CCTV body‑worn video establishes identity beyond a reasonable doubt — Close‑up facial features, build, clothing, voice and demeanour captured — Complainant’s credibility and reliability accepted — R. v. Nikolovski applied to high‑quality, prolonged footage — Identity proven beyond a reasonable doubt<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Uttering threats — Criminal Code, s. 264.1(1) — Do the words “You don’t know who I am” and “You want to get one to the dome” with a gun‑pointing gesture constitute a threat — Intimidation inferred during security investigation — Later statements about coming back to shoot reiterated threat — Conviction entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Assault — Criminal Code, s. 266 — Whether purposeful contact to the complainant’s nose while making a gun gesture amounts to assault — Physical contact without consent proved — Aggressive approach within a foot, intentional swing described — Force minimal but deliberate in context — Elements of assault established — Conviction entered
• 2025-12-17 R. v. McLeish, 2025 ONCJ 675 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Firearms — Possession — Whether circumstantial evidence establishes possession of the handgun — Loaded handgun found under the defendant’s car within arm’s reach — Officer’s observations, body‑worn camera, absence of other actors nearby — Alternative explanations rejected as speculation — Elements of possession inferred from conduct and proximity — Conviction entered<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Reasonable doubt — Is guilt the only reasonable inference on the whole of the evidence under Villaroman, with Lifchus on burden? — Lack of fingerprints or DNA not exculpatory — Unknown DNA and brief observation gap assessed using common sense and human experience — Alternatives inconsistent with evidence found speculative — Conviction entered
• 2025-12-17 R. v. Yousaf, 2025 ONCJ 676 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Unreasonable delay — Calculation of delay — Whether net delay exceeded the 18‑month Jordan ceiling — Total delay 792 days, explicit waiver deducted — Additional deductions considered — Net delay determined at 489 days, below the presumptive ceiling — No s. 11(b) breach established — Application dismissed<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Defence delay — Case management steps — Whether delay in setting a CPT and a trial scheduling conference is attributable to the defence — Failure to set CPT for 33 days after advising disclosure sufficient — Unexplained 60‑day delay to arrange trial scheduling — Deductions ordered under Jordan — Net delay reduced<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Defence delay — Notice of stay — Whether late notice of s. 11(b) Application warrants deduction — No delay caused by notice timing — No evidence earlier trial dates available or sought — No deduction appropriate for lack of prior notice — Application dismissed<br />Constitution — Charter remedies — Below‑ceiling cases — Residual Jordan test — Whether meaningful steps taken and case took markedly longer than it should have — No sustained effort to expedite proceedings shown — Case not markedly longer given disclosure and related matters — Stay refused — Application dismissed
• 2025-12-16 R. v. Younkman, 2025 ONCJ 669 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sexual assault — Consent — Whether Crown proved absence of consent beyond a reasonable doubt — Complainant’s subjective internal state assessed — Credibility and reliability considered with Ewanchuk, Barton, Kruk — Participation, requests honoured, no coercion or force found — Further consideration of mistaken belief unnecessary — Acquittal<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Unreasonable delay — Whether 15 months was markedly longer than it reasonably should have been — Responsibility for adjournment arising from s. 276 and s. 278 issues — Jordan applied below the 18‑month ceiling — Shared responsibility by Crown and defence, proactive measures emphasised — Stay of proceedings refused — Application dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Mens rea — Honest but mistaken belief in consent — Whether there was a factual basis that the Accused took the necessary steps — Guidance from R. v. Akhali referenced — Determination rendered redundant after consent not proven beyond a reasonable doubt — No further mens rea analysis undertaken — Acquittal
• 2025-12-16 R. v. Sahota, 2025 ONCJ 670 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — s. 11(b) reasonable time — R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27 — Whether net delay exceeds the 18‑month presumptive ceiling — Calculation from charge to anticipated end of trial — Defence delay deducted including waivers — Net delay 17.9 months below ceiling — Subceiling stay not a clear case — Application dismissed<br />Procedure — Delay attribution — Defence conduct and waiver — Formal waivers and adjournments — Whether defence responsible for periods of delay and unavailability — Failure to conduct pretrials and obtain trial dates — Refusals of earlier dates offered by court — Defence delay found and deducted — Application dismissed<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — s. 11(b) exceptional circumstances — Pandemic disruption — Whether COVID‑19 pandemic delay warrants a general deduction — Recognition of discrete exceptional circumstance in appellate authorities — Local conditions and court shutdowns noted — Deduction unnecessary to disposition given subceiling net delay — Application dismissed<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — s. 11(b) exceptional circumstances — Witness non‑attendance — Whether complainant’s unexplained absence is a discrete exceptional circumstance — Absence of evidentiary record precludes finding — Delay treated as non‑defence where another trial had priority — Non‑attendance not exceptional on this record — Application dismissed