Décisions de la Cour

Une série de jugements de la Cour de justice de l’Ontario, pour la plupart rendus après le 1er avril 2004, sont affichés sur le site Web de CanLII. Ce site n’est pas une source exhaustive de jugements de la Cour de justice de l’Ontario. La version officielle des motifs de jugement est le document original signé ou l’endossement manuscrit dans le dossier de la Cour. S’il y a une question concernant le contenu d’un jugement, le document original dans le dossier de la Cour l’emporte.

Jugements ne sont disponibles que dans la langue dans laquelle ils ont été rédigés.

On peut obtenir des copies des jugements de la Cour de justice de l’Ontario en contactant les greffes respectifs. Des frais de photocopie sont requis. Les adresses et les numéros de téléphone de certains tribunaux sont disponibles sur le site web du ministère du procureur général. On peut consulter ces jugements en s’abonnant à un service comme LexisNexisMD, QuicklawMC et WestlawNextMD Canada.

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

Cour de justice de l’Ontario – décisions récentes

  • 2025-10-10 R. v. Gyory, 2025 ONCJ 536 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Criminal infractions — Driving with blood alcohol concentration exceeding legal limit — Defendant charged under s. 320.14(1)(b) of the Criminal Code — Defendant’s blood alcohol concentration confirmed to exceed 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood — Whether the Crown proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt — Evidentiary requirements for conviction under s. 320.14(1)(b) — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 320.14(1)(b)<br />Criminal procedure — Admissibility of Certificate of Qualified Technician — Service of certificate on defendant — Whether proof of service can be established by circumstantial evidence or inference — Crown relied on signatures on certificate to establish service — Standard of proof for admissibility of certificate evidence — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 320.32(2)<br />Criminal procedure — Oral testimony of qualified technician — Admissibility of breath test results without certificate evidence — Preconditions for admissibility of breath test results at common law — Whether the instrument was in good working order and properly used — Crown relied on viva voce testimony to establish blood alcohol concentration — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 320.31(1)
  • 2025-10-09 R. v. T.J.L., 2025 ONCJ 530 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sexual assault — Assault — Uttering death threats — Accused charged with sexual assault, assault, and uttering death threats — Did the Crown prove the essential elements of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt? — Application of the R. v. W.(D.) framework to assess credibility and reliability — Findings of guilt for all three charges based on complainant’s credible and reliable evidence<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — Conflicting testimony — Complainant alleged sexual assault, assault, and death threats — Accused denied allegations and claimed complainant fabricated them out of anger — Did the complainant’s evidence prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt? — Framework from R. v. W.(D.) applied to assess credibility and reliability of conflicting evidence<br />Evidence — Testimonial demeanour — Learning disability — Accused’s pauses and uncertainty during testimony — Should the accused’s learning disability affect the assessment of credibility? — Court excluded testimonial demeanour from credibility analysis due to the accused’s learning disability<br />Criminal procedure — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Application of R. v. W.(D.) — Accused’s evidence inconsistent and improbable — Complainant’s evidence credible and reliable — Did the Crown meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt? — Presumption of innocence displaced by evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
  • 2025-10-08 R. v. Shergill, 2025 ONCJ 527 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Criminal procedure — Impaired driving — Driving with excess blood alcohol — Single-vehicle collision — Police investigation — Screening demand — Arrest — Right to counsel — Did the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was impaired? — Standard of proof for impaired driving — Prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof — Defendant acquitted of impaired driving and driving with excess blood alcohol<br />Evidence — Impaired driving — Proof of impairment — Odour of alcohol — Dazed behaviour — Collision circumstances — Whether evidence of impairment was sufficient to meet the standard of proof — Alcohol on breath insufficient without more — Evidence equally consistent with accident and injuries — Prosecution failed to establish impairment beyond a reasonable doubt<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Right to counsel — Section 10(b) — Police conduct — Arbitrary time limit for contacting counsel — Police bypassing detainee in facilitating access to counsel — Did the police likely breach the defendant’s right to counsel? — Police acted unreasonably — Defendant’s right to counsel breached<br />Constitution — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — Breath test results — Section 24(2) of the Charter — Seriousness of breach — Impact on defendant’s rights — Public confidence in the administration of justice — Should the breath test results be excluded as a remedy for the Charter breach? — Evidence excluded — Defendant acquitted of driving with excess blood alcohol
  • 2025-10-08 R. v. B.G., 2025 ONCJ 528 (CanLII)
    Key Words: Child protection — Production of child protection records — Privacy interests — Applicant sought production of child protection records from 2016, 2018, and 2022 — Whether the records were "likely relevant" to issues at trial or the competence of a witness — Whether production was "necessary in the interests of justice" — Balancing privacy rights of Complainants and Applicant's right to make full answer and defence — Criminal Code, ss. 278.3, 278.5<br />Criminal procedure — Third-party records — Likely relevance — Applicant sought production of child protection records to challenge credibility and reliability of Complainants — Whether Applicant established evidentiary foundation for likely relevance — Court found no case-specific evidence or information to support relevance of disputed records — Criminal Code, s. 278.3<br />Criminal procedure — Interests of justice — Privacy versus full answer and defence — Applicant argued production of child protection records was necessary to make full answer and defence — Court held privacy rights of Complainants outweighed probative value of records — Production not constitutionally required — Criminal Code, s. 278.5<br />Constitution — Privacy rights — Full answer and defence — Balancing fundamental rights — Court considered privacy rights under s. 8 of the Charter and Applicant's right to make full answer and defence — Privacy rights of Complainants in child protection records found to be substantial — Production denied where records lacked probative value — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 8
  • 2025-10-08 R. c. Belmkaddem, 2025 ONCJ 534 (CanLII)
    Key Words: identifiants — données — bots — accusé — marché
Cour de justice de l’Ontario