Décisions de la Cour

Abonnez-vous au fil de nouvelles RSS afin de consulter les décisions

• Nouvelles décisions : Cour de justice de l’Ontario

Cour de justice de l’Ontario – décisions récentes

• 2026-01-09 R. v. Sarwar, 2026 ONCJ 14 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Police powers — Investigative detention — Whether a person seated in the driver’s seat is “in charge of a motor vehicle” under s. 33 HTA — ALPR alert linked to unlicensed driver on a highway — Exiting the vehicle does not negate detention authority, R v Melmer applied — Detention lawful<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Arrest — Highway Traffic Act powers — Whether warrantless arrest under s. 217(2) HTA was authorised for continued refusal to identify under s. 33(3) — Multiple requests and warnings ignored, attempts to leave — Arrest executed after persistent non‑compliance — Arrest lawful<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Search incident to arrest — Vehicle search for identification — Whether search of the Honda Civic for identity documents was reasonably necessary and purposive — Common law incident search, R v Caslake, R v Nolet — Scope limited to locating driver’s licence, search ceased once found — Search upheld<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter rights — Right to counsel — Whether right to counsel was provided at the first opportunity following arrest — Advice read in cruiser, non‑responsive answers, Prosper warning given, no impediment by police — No evidence of a s. 10 breach — No Charter breach
• 2026-01-09 R. v. Mehanathan, 2026 ONCJ 12 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired operation and 80 plus — Identification — Did the Crown prove operation beyond a reasonable doubt? — Complainant’s observations internally inconsistent and inconsistent with external circumstances — Circumstantial evidence, including rings and ICC video, insufficient to establish identity — Breath tests would be admissible notwithstanding Charter breach — Charge dismissed<br />Evidence — Identification — Reliability of eyewitness observations — Whether complainant’s fleeting and distant observations, later phone description of two rings, and absence of beard description can prove identity — Inconsistencies with ICC video and plaza movements — Circumstantial evidence does not bridge the gap — Identification not proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Charge dismissed<br />Constitution — Detention and arrest — Charter ss. 8, 9 — Were investigative detention, arrest and approved instrument demand supported by reasonable suspicion and reasonable grounds? — Plain intoxication and information available to officer sufficient if identity were proven — Grounds assessed in the alternative — Grounds established in the alternative<br />Constitution — Right to counsel — Charter s. 10(b) — Was there a breach by delaying advice during investigative detention? — Investigation not brief roadside, delay unexplained, advice provided only on arrest — Officer advised reason for detention under s. 10(a) — s. 10(b) breach found<br />Constitution — Exclusion of evidence — Charter s. 24(2) — Should breath tests be excluded for the s. 10(b) breach? — Breach not wilful or reckless, limited impact on protected interests — Society’s interest in adjudication on the merits considered — Admission would not bring administration of justice into disrepute — Breath test evidence admitted in the alternative
• 2026-01-05 R. v. Bonaldo, 2026 ONCJ 1 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Impaired operation causing death and bodily harm — Appropriate global sentence for impaired operation with failure to remain — Whether a consecutive sentence for failing to remain is warranted — Totality applied to avoid a crushing sentence — Denunciation and deterrence emphasised — Global eight-year penitentiary sentence imposed, including two years consecutive<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Aggravating factors — Statutory factors — Application of s. 320.22 and s. 718.1 — Whether post–Bill C‑46 denunciation and deterrence justify severe punishment — Blood alcohol concentration exceeding 120 mg per 100 mL treated as aggravating — Multiple victims considered — Moral blameworthiness high — Crown’s measured position accepted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Driving prohibitions and DNA orders — Should an extended driving prohibition be imposed, and is a DNA order appropriate? — Statutory driving prohibition begins immediately with intent for ten years post custody — Attempt to flee after the accident considered — Eighteen-year driving prohibition and DNA order issued
• 2026-01-05 R. v. J.M., 2026 ONCJ 2 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Evidence — Third‑party records — Sexual offence proceedings — Likely relevance — Whether the records are likely relevant under s. 278.5(1)(b) — Police occurrence reports relating to Mental Health Act apprehensions and restraining order — Motive to fabricate grounded in temporal connections — Collateral matters and immaterial contradictions excluded — Some records found not likely relevant — Application allowed in part<br />Evidence — Third‑party records — Sexual offence proceedings — Interests of justice — Whether production to the court is necessary in the interests of justice under s. 278.5(1)(c) — Balancing full answer and defence with privacy and dignity interests — Reliance on Mills and Quesnelle — Production for May 9, 2023 and August 6, 2024 reports ordered for inspection — Remaining reports to remain sealed — Application allowed in part
• 2026-01-05 R. v. Garofalo, 2026 ONCJ 3 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Criminal disclosure — Third‑party records — Whether Lidar maintenance records are likely relevant under O’Connor — Application of Stinchcombe duty and Gubbins to maintenance records — Mere assertion of relevance insufficient absent case‑specific evidence per Batte — Request found speculative and a fishing expedition — Disclosure of maintenance records denied — Motion dismissed<br />Evidence — Admissibility — Speed measurement devices — Whether a voir dire is required to admit Lidar evidence — Iagolnik applied to distinguish admissibility from weight — No need to prove general reliability of Lidar in every case — Officer may be cross‑examined within bounds of relevance — Request for voir dire dismissed<br />Evidence — Weight of evidence — Officer’s notes and training — Whether limited notes or recent training undermine reliability — Notes are testimonial aids, not evidence, per Neuman and Golubentsev — What matters is what the officer did, not how trained, per Beaver — Training materials and credentials not likely relevant — Challenge goes to weight at trial — Disclosure denied<br />Procedure — Costs — Criminal proceedings — Whether costs should be awarded for disclosure conduct — Costs reserved for marked and unacceptable Crown misconduct per Sault Sainte Marie — Adjournment is usual remedy for non‑disclosure per Dixon and Bjelland — Prosecution’s conduct not misconduct and disclosure addressed — Costs denied