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

• 2026-01-19 R. v. Uthayakumar, 2026 ONCJ 24 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Firearms offences — Fit sentence proportionate to gravity and degree of responsibility — Denunciation, general deterrence and rehabilitation balanced — Loaded handgun on a public roadway introduces high risk — Total sentence left to serve is 24 months imprisonment — Lifetime s. 109 firearms prohibition and DNA order imposed — Sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Firearms possession — What is the fit sentence for possession of a loaded restricted firearm and related offences — Enhanced pre-sentence report and social context evidence considered — Degree of responsibility and moral blameworthiness assessed — Conduct placed in the upper-middle range of the firearms possession spectrum — Penitentiary sentence required<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Conditional sentence — Section 742.1 — Whether a conditional sentence order is available and appropriate under s. 742.1 — Even denunciation and general deterrence can be addressed by a suitably punitive conditional sentence — A CSO is therefore not statutorily available, and I decline to impose one — Conditional sentence refused<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Credit for bail — How to account for time on restrictive bail and whether such credit can render a CSO available — Credit for the over 4 years spent successfully navigating a restrictive bail applied — Conditional sentence cannot become available solely because of credit for bail (R. v. Johnston, R. v. Fice) — Credit applied without making CSO available<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Kienapple principle — Whether overlapping counts should be stayed and what ancillary orders issue — Counts conditionally stayed pursuant to the Kienapple principle — Prohibited for life from possessing firearms under s. 109 — DNA sample ordered under s. 487.051(3)(b) — Counts stayed and ancillary orders made
• 2026-01-15 Reid v. Fortune, 2026 ONCJ 19 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Costs — Offers to settle — Family Law Rules — Subrule 24(12) consequences — Did the mother obtain an order as good as or better than her severable offer? — Parts A through D matched the orders — Subrule 18(4) and subrule 24(13) considered — Discretion not to apply consequences declined due to unreasonable conduct — Costs consequences under subrule 24(12) applied — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Quantum and proportionality — Subrule 24(14) factors — Are full recovery costs still subject to reasonableness and fairness? — Time, rates and disbursements reviewed — Service on multiple third parties increased reasonable time — Conduct and complexity assessed — Proportional, fair and reasonable amount fixed — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Enforcement of disclosure orders — Is the mother entitled to costs for enforcing the disclosure order? — Father’s non‑compliance and unreasonable conduct found — Fundamental duty of immediate and ongoing financial disclosure reaffirmed — Success considered under subrule 24(14)(a)(iii) — Entitlement confirmed despite opposition — Costs awarded<br />Procedure — Costs — Ability to pay — Does inability to pay mitigate costs where conduct is unreasonable? — Ability to pay given minor weight — Experienced litigant failed to comply with orders and disclosure — Reasonable expectations of adverse costs considered — Impecuniosity cases applied — Costs not reduced for claimed inability — Costs awarded
• 2026-01-15 R. v. J.S., 2026 ONCJ 22 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 11(b) — Jordan framework — Apportionment of delay per Hanan — Whether net delay exceeded the 18‑month presumptive ceiling — Crown disclosure delay recognized, defence‑caused periods identified — Earlier offered trial dates and reasonable availability assessed — Net delay calculated at 465 days, below ceiling — Application dismissed<br />Procedure — Criminal procedure — Defence delay — Whether postponing crown pretrial, judicial pretrial and trial scheduling meeting constitutes defence delay — Failure to promptly arrange pretrials despite core disclosure — Earlier coordinator dates not taken — Discrete periods of 18, 21 and 14 days deducted — Defence delay deducted<br />Rights and freedoms — Sub‑ceiling stay — Jordan — Whether a sub‑ceiling stay is appropriate where net delay is below the ceiling — Meaningful steps and sustained effort to expedite required — Actual prejudice not an independent factor — Accused failed to take meaningful steps and declined earlier dates — Application dismissed
• 2026-01-15 R. v. Singh, 2026 ONCJ 23 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Criminal negligence causing death or bodily harm — Criminal Code, ss. 219(1), 220, 221 — Whether driving amounted to a marked and substantial departure showing wanton or reckless disregard — Brief passing manoeuvre in treacherous conditions assessed — Distinction from dangerous driving emphasized — No sustained inattention or intentional risk-taking found — Acquittal of criminal negligence counts<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Dangerous driving — Objective fault — Did the accused’s passing in poor winter conditions up a hill constitute a marked departure? — Eyewitness accounts and reconstruction accepted — Centre lines obscured, long line of slow traffic, oncoming lane entered for several seconds — Roy framework applied to foreseeability and reasonable steps — Convictions entered<br />Evidence — Assessment of accused’s statements — W.(D.) — Whether the 911 explanation raises a reasonable doubt — Statements claiming loss of control due to snow contrasted with eyewitness and ACM data — Civilian testimony and video corroboration preferred — Credibility and reliability analysis conducted per W.(D.) and Dinardo — No reasonable doubt raised
• 2026-01-14 R. v. Ogbomo, 2026 ONCJ 17 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Search and seizure — Facial validity of warrant — Did the affiant possess subjective and objective reasonable grounds to believe items would be in the places searched? — Use of “possibly” and “could be” assessed in context — Confidential source information refreshed dated material — Reasonable grounds established on a holistic, common-sense reading — Application dismissed<br />Procedure — Warrant review — Excision and amplification — Whether misstatements or omissions in the ITO should be excised or corrected — Garofoli framework applied with amplified record — Credibility concerns and undisclosed facts considered but not material — Core substance sufficient for issuance after corrections — Warrant could have issued<br />Procedure — Abuse of process — Residual discretion to set aside — Whether affiant’s conduct was so subversive of the authorization process that the warrant must be set aside — Carelessness and lack of training noted but no deliberate deception — No subversion of prior authorization process — Warrant upheld<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — If the warrant were set aside, should the evidence be excluded under s. 24(2) of the Charter? — Court declined to engage the exclusionary inquiry — No consideration of Grant factors — No s. 24(2) analysis required