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
- Nouvelles décisions : Cour de justice de l’Ontario

Cour de justice de l’Ontario – décisions récentes
-
2025-11-12 R. v. Moore, 2025 ONCJ 596 (CanLII)
Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Production of methamphetamine — Offender pleaded guilty to producing methamphetamine in a clandestine lab as part of a large-scale drug network — What is the appropriate sentence for the offence, considering denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation? — Sentence of 5 years imposed, reflecting mitigating factors and collateral consequences — Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 7(1); Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2<br />Health — Mitigating factors — Offender’s health issues, including symptoms of Ménière’s disease, financial strain, and lack of prior criminal record — Offender demonstrated remorse, rehabilitative efforts, and positive prospects for reintegration — Should these factors reduce the sentence? — Mitigating factors considered but balanced against the seriousness of the offence<br />Health — Collateral consequences — Pre-sentence custody — Offender experienced severe physical effects due to interruption of prescribed medication while in custody — Should collateral consequences of pre-sentence custody be considered in sentencing? — Collateral consequences treated as a mitigating factor but not overriding denunciation and deterrence<br />Criminal procedure — Ancillary orders — DNA order and firearm prohibition — Offender ordered to provide DNA sample and prohibited from possessing firearms and related items for life — Ancillary orders imposed under Criminal Code, ss. 109, 487.051 -
2025-11-07 R. v. Dainard, 2025 ONCJ 583 (CanLII)
Key Words: Criminal procedure — Disclosure obligations — Defence motion for further disclosure — Crown's ongoing duty to disclose — Defence sought source documents for all facets of the investigation — Whether the disclosure motion was untimely and lacked focus — Impact of granting disclosure on trial schedule and delay — R. v. Cody, 2017 SCC 31 — Crown disclosure obligations balanced against trial efficiency and timeliness<br />Evidence — Cross-examination of affiant — Defence motion for leave to cross-examine affiant on Information to Obtain (ITO) — Alleged misrepresentations, omissions, and errors in ITO — Whether cross-examination necessary to discredit preconditions for search warrant issuance — Preventing "fishing expeditions" — R. v. Garofoli, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1421 — Evidentiary threshold for granting leave to cross-examine affiant<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Section 8 — Right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure — Judicial authorization for search warrants — Presumptive validity of judicial orders — Whether Defence demonstrated that affiant's statements undermined reasonable and probable grounds for search — Balancing individual rights and public interest in efficient judicial processes — R. v. Pires; R. v. Lising, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 343<br />Evidence — Information to Obtain (ITO) — Sufficiency of information in ITO — Facial validity versus sub-facial validity — Defence's burden to demonstrate material misrepresentations or omissions in ITO — Whether alleged errors in ITO discredited grounds for search warrant issuance — R. v. Morelli, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 253 — Evidentiary basis required to challenge ITO content -
2025-11-06 R. v. Beites, 2025 ONCJ 582 (CanLII)
Key Words: Criminal infractions — Uttering threats — Criminal Code, s. 264.1(1) — Accused left a voicemail threatening bodily harm to her son and arson against her daughter-in-law’s business — Whether the voicemail constituted a threat under section 264.1(1) — Reasonable person standard applied to determine whether the utterance would be perceived as a threat — Crown met burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt<br />Family — Family conflicts — Context of estranged family relationships — Accused excluded from son’s funeral and estranged from grandchildren — Voicemail left in the context of ongoing family disputes — Whether family dynamics and conflicts influenced the interpretation of the accused’s intent — Court focused on the tenor of relationships and circumstances surrounding the utterance<br />Criminal procedure — Mens rea — Subjective intent — Whether the accused intended her words to intimidate or be taken seriously — Court considered the tone, language, and context of the voicemail — Ambiguity in language evaluated in context — Mens rea established where intent to intimidate was inferred from circumstances<br />Evidence — Ambiguity in language — Voicemail contained vulgar and aggressive language, including references to “burn” and “going down” — Court rejected defence argument that language referred to civil litigation — Ambiguity in language does not necessarily raise reasonable doubt — Ambiguous threats can still be intended to intimidate — Evidence supported finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt -
2025-11-05 R. v. Cappella, 2025 ONCJ 578 (CanLII)
Key Words: Criminal infractions — Aggravated assault — Defence of person — Accused struck complainant with a baseball bat, causing severe injuries — Whether the defence of person under s. 34 of the Criminal Code applied — Crown disproved reasonableness of the accused’s actions — Strike deemed disproportionate and unreasonable — Aggravated assault proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Criminal Code, s. 34<br />Criminal infractions — Attempted murder — Intent to kill — Accused struck complainant with a baseball bat — Whether the accused intended to kill — Crown failed to prove intent to kill beyond a reasonable doubt — Single blow and subsequent flight inconsistent with homicidal intent — Attempted murder not proven — Criminal Code, s. 229<br />Criminal infractions — Assault with a weapon — Self-defence — Accused struck and swung a baseball bat at complainant — Whether self-defence applied to strikes and swings — Crown failed to disprove self-defence for strikes during fight — Swing before fight deemed unreasonable and not justified by self-defence — Assault with a weapon partially proven — Criminal Code, s. 34<br />Criminal infractions — Uttering threats — Self-defence — Accused uttered death threats during confrontation — Whether self-defence applied to utterances — Crown failed to disprove that threats were defensive and proportionate to perceived threat — Uttering threats not proven — Criminal Code, s. 34<br />Criminal procedure — Burden of proof — Self-defence — Crown’s burden to disprove self-defence beyond a reasonable doubt — Reasonableness of accused’s actions assessed under s. 34 of the Criminal Code — Standard of proof clarified — R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33 -
2025-11-05 R. v. Anwer, 2025 ONCJ 581 (CanLII)
Key Words: Criminal infractions — Assault — Assault by choking — Accused charged with assault and choking contrary to sections 266 and 267(c) of the Criminal Code — Complainant alleged physical violence, including choking and striking — Whether the accused committed the alleged offenses — Evidence of bruising, photographs, and medical records corroborated complainant’s testimony — Accused’s denial rejected as incapable of belief — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 266, 267(c)<br />Criminal procedure — Standard of proof — Reasonable doubt — Assessment of conflicting evidence — Whether the evidence presented by the Crown established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — Trial judge applied the framework from R. v. W(D.) — Evidence considered as a whole, including corroborative photographs and medical records — Accused’s testimony found implausible — Framework governing reasonable doubt in criminal trials<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — Complainant’s testimony — Inconsistencies in testimony and admission of lying about alcohol consumption — Whether inconsistencies undermined credibility — Trial judge found complainant credible despite minor inconsistencies — Explanation for lying about alcohol consumption accepted — Photographs and medical records corroborated complainant’s account — Principles from R. v. Morrissey and R. v. H.C. applied