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

• 2025-11-19 R. v. Murray, 2025 ONCJ 604 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Criminal harassment — Threatening conduct — Accused engaged in threatening and Islamophobic comments toward a stranger in a dark parking lot — Did the accused’s conduct constitute criminal harassment under section 264(2)(d) of the Criminal Code? — Framework for criminal harassment includes threatening conduct, knowledge or recklessness, and reasonable fear for safety — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 264(2)(d)<br />Evidence — Witness credibility — Reliability and consistency — Complainant’s testimony corroborated by surveillance footage and call logs — Accused’s testimony rejected due to inconsistencies and implausibility — Did the evidence establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? — Credibility assessed using common-sense factors, including internal consistency and corroboration — R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742<br />Evidence — Uttering threats — Threat to cause bodily harm — Accused threatened to rape the complainant during an interaction in a parking lot — Did the accused knowingly utter a threat to cause bodily harm under section 264.1(a) of the Criminal Code? — Threats assessed based on their natural meaning and context — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 264.1(a)<br />Criminal procedure — Amendment of charges — Uttering threats — Charge particularized as a threat to cause death — Crown sought amendment to conform to evidence of a threat to cause bodily harm — Should the charge be amended under section 601(2) of the Criminal Code? — Amendment allowed where no prejudice to the accused and fairness of trial maintained — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 601(2)<br />Criminal procedure — Witness credibility — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Trial judge rejected accused’s testimony and accepted complainant’s account — What is the appropriate framework for assessing credibility in a criminal trial? — Credibility assessed using factors such as internal consistency, corroboration, and absence of motive to fabricate — R. v. W. (D.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742
• 2025-11-19 R. v. Smissaert, 2025 ONCJ 603 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Warrantless seizure — Firearms — Accused’s residence — Police entry without judicial authorization — Exigent circumstances — Did the warrantless seizure violate the accused’s section 8 Charter rights? — Section 117.04(2) of the Criminal Code — Test for warrantless seizure — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8 — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 117.04(2)<br />Evidence — Charter violations — Section 8 — Warrantless search and seizure — Firearms and ammunition — Police reliance on accused’s statements — Speculative danger — Lack of urgency — Did the police have reasonable grounds to justify the warrantless seizure? — Test for reasonableness under section 8 of the Charter — Hunter v. Southam — R. v. Collins<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter remedies — Section 24(2) — Exclusion of evidence — Warrantless seizure of firearms — Balancing test under R. v. Grant — Impact on Charter-protected interests — Public safety concerns — Regulatory versus criminal context — Should the evidence be excluded under section 24(2)? — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 24(2)<br />Criminal procedure — Warrantless searches — Exigent circumstances — Section 117.04(2) of the Criminal Code — Police discretion — Public safety — Impracticability of obtaining a warrant — Interpretation of “possible danger” — Did the police meet the statutory requirements for warrantless seizure? — R. v. Paterson — R. v. Campbell — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 117.04(2)
• 2025-11-17 R. v. Leon, 2025 ONCJ 601 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Search warrants — Confidential informants — Information to Obtain (ITO) — Did the ITO provide sufficient grounds for the issuance of search warrants? — Application of the Debot criteria (credibility, compelling nature, corroboration) — Presumption of validity of search warrants — Section 8 of the Charter violated due to insufficient grounds in the ITO<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Arrest and search incident to arrest — Reasonable grounds for arrest — Did the police have reasonable grounds to arrest the accused and conduct a search incident to arrest? — Section 8 of the Charter violated due to lack of reasonable grounds for arrest<br />Evidence — Exclusion of evidence — Section 24(2) of the Charter — Firearms and ammunition — Seriousness of Charter breach — Impact on accused’s privacy interests — Public interest in adjudication on the merits — Should evidence obtained from unlawful searches and arrest be excluded? — Balancing the Grant factors — Evidence excluded to preserve the administration of justice<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Misleading the issuing justice — Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) warrant — Use of CDSA warrant as a ruse to seize firearms — Did the police mislead the issuing justice by seeking a CDSA warrant for firearms? — Judicial candour and full disclosure in ex parte warrant applications
• 2025-11-17 R. v. Tynes-Dempsey, 2025 ONCJ 602 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Evidence — Credibility and reliability of witnesses — Complainant’s demeanor and memory issues — Hostility and inconsistencies in testimony — Whether complainant’s evidence was credible and reliable despite challenges in cross-examination — Trial judge’s assessment of demeanor, corroboration, and context — R. v. Barton applied — Evidence found credible and reliable in relation to May 19 and October 26, 2023, incidents<br />Criminal infractions — Assault — Assault causing bodily harm — May 19, 2023, and October 26, 2023 — Complainant’s testimony corroborated by CCTV, photographs, medical records, and body-worn camera footage — Whether Crown proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — Accused found guilty of assault and assault causing bodily harm<br />Criminal infractions — Breach of probation — Failure to keep the peace and be of good behaviour — Probation orders in effect on May 19, 2023, and October 26, 2023 — Certified copies of probation orders filed on consent — Whether breaches were proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Accused found guilty of probation breaches<br />Criminal procedure — Cross-examination — Conduct of defence counsel — Hostile and argumentative cross-examination — Delays in cross-examination due to scheduling and illness — Whether cross-examination deprived defence of meaningful opportunity to challenge evidence — Trial judge found cross-examination ineffective but not unfair — Defence counsel’s approach contributed to witness hostility<br />Criminal infractions — Dismissal of charges — Insufficient evidence — November 5, 2023, incident — Complainant’s evidence found unreliable for this incident — Crown invited dismissal of charges — Accused found not guilty of November 5, 2023, charges
• 2025-11-14 R. v. Grewal, 2025 ONCJ 600 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b) — Right to be tried within a reasonable time — Provincial Offences Act — Early resolution meetings — When does the clock start for calculating delay under section 11(b) of the Charter? — Framework from R. v. Jordan applied — Time pursuing resolution considered implicit waiver of delay until trial election<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 11(b) — Reasonable time to trial — Provincial Offences Act — Whether time between filing of certificate of offence and early resolution meeting constitutes defence delay — Justice of the Peace erred in including this period in delay calculation — Jordan framework applied<br />Criminal procedure — Delay calculation — Section 11(b) Charter analysis — Justice of the Peace’s error in calculating relevant time periods — Time pursuing resolution excluded as defence delay — Net delay below presumptive ceiling — Framework from R. v. Jordan applied to determine reasonableness of delay