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

• 2026-02-11 R. v. Mohammad Rafiq, 2026 ONCJ 71 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Uttering threats — Criminal Code, s. 264.1(a) — Whether words in Dari constituted a threat to cause death — Objective meaning assessed in context and circumstances — Intent to intimidate inferred, not necessary to intend carrying out threat, citing R. v. McCrae — Threat to “cut her neck or throat” found — Guilty on count 3<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Uttering threats — Criminal Code, s. 264.1(a) — Whether statement “I will not allow you to remain and walk alive like this” is a threat — Cell phone video corroboration and contemporaneous conduct considered — Objective interpretation and mens rea established beyond a reasonable doubt — Following and confrontation in parking area — Guilty on count 7<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Breach of probation — Communication and attendance prohibitions — Whether accused knowingly breached no‑contact and 500m residence conditions — Surveillance and cell phone video establish presence and interaction — No dispute as to probation terms or attendance and communication — Separate counts assessed and proven beyond reasonable doubt — Guilty on counts 1, 2, 5, 6 and 8<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Criminal harassment — Criminal Code, s. 264(2)(c) — Whether accused beset or watched the complainant’s residence and caused reasonable fear — Meaning of “beset” and “watch” applied, citing R. v. Eltom and Kosikar — Threats and presence linked to harassment and fear — Prior convictions probative of animus, knowledge, intention — Guilty on count 4<br />Evidence — Similar fact and relationship evidence — Prior discreditable conduct — Admissibility to prove animus and contextual relationship in domestic violence prosecutions — Probative value outweighs prejudicial effect in judge‑alone trial, citing Sandhu, Nolan, J.H. — Limited use only for animus, knowledge and intention regarding harassment — Admitted for limited purpose
• 2026-02-09 R. v. Robitaille, 2026 ONCJ 64 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional discharge vs suspended sentence — Whether a conditional discharge should be granted despite violence resulting in injury — General deterrence considered in light of R. v. Wood — s. 718.2 principles engaged — Incarceration not imposed — Proportionality and restraint emphasised — Conditional discharge granted and probation ordered<br />Indigenous peoples — Sentencing — Gladue and Ipeelee — Application of s. 718.2(e) where incarceration is not contemplated — Whether Indigenous circumstances justify discharge over suspended sentence — Remedial purpose of s. 718.2(e) recognised — Risk of future over-incarceration from a conviction acknowledged — Unique background and rehabilitation considered — Gladue principles applied — Conditional discharge granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Aggravating and mitigating factors — ss. 718 and 718.2 considered — Serious injury to victim acknowledged — Mental health and addiction struggles, Indigenous background, remorse, no criminal record, lengthy restrictive bail — Rehabilitation efforts and less restrictive sanctions weighed — Parity and restraint applied — Conditional discharge with probation for 18 months ordered
• 2026-02-05 R. v. Smart, 2026 ONCJ 57 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Weapons dangerous, s. 88 Criminal Code — Purpose dangerous to the public peace — Did the accused possess the machete for a purpose dangerous to the public peace? — Hybrid subjective objective test from R. v. Kerr applied — Concealment, quick resort, facial injury, and disposal assessed — Self-serving “culinary” purpose rejected — Guilty as charged<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Defences — Self-defence, s. 34 Criminal Code — Was swinging a concealed machete at the head a reasonable response? — Catalyst and motive accepted, response unreasonable under R v Khill — Disproportionate force to single punch, ability to retreat or call police — Self-defence claim rejected — Conviction entered<br />Evidence — Credibility — Prior convictions, Canada Evidence Act, s. 12 — How may prior convictions be used to assess credibility? — Limits on cross-examination per Corbett and M.C. — Convictions demonstrating disregard for court orders weighed, dishonesty capacity considered per Hussein and Marshall — No propensity reasoning — Credibility undermined<br />Evidence — After-the-fact conduct — Relevance and weight — What inferences arise from concealing and abandoning the machete? — Conduct not equally consistent with innocence, inference of dissociation and guilt available — Calnen and Marshall principles applied — Placement in coffee shop alcove, non-disclosure to police, no retrieval — Inference of consciousness of guilt accepted — Conviction affirmed
• 2026-02-05 A.N. v. C.M., 2026 ONCJ 58 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Decision-making responsibility — Children’s Law Reform Act, ss. 20, 24 — Whether sole or joint decision-making best serves the child’s needs — Parents’ high conflict and inability to co-operate examined — Child’s special needs and history of primary care assessed — Mother’s stability and reliability concerns weighed — Sole decision-making and primary residence to father ordered<br />Family — Parenting time — Best interests — What parenting schedule best promotes stability and reduces conflict — Defined exchanges and holiday provisions required to prevent self-help — Child bonded to both parents and content with current schedule — One-on-one time with mother accommodated — Structured schedule reflecting pre-litigation pattern with clear terms ordered<br />Family — Parenting covenants — Information-sharing — What terms are necessary to reduce conflict and ensure access to information — Equal entitlement to information from third parties directed — Parenting App mandated and timeline for informing of decisions set — Sobriety when parenting and non-denigration clauses imposed — Information-sharing and communication measures, with primary residence to father, ordered
• 2026-02-04 R. v. E.L., 2026 ONCJ 56 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Statutory interpretation — Hybrid offences — YCJA s. 39(1)(d) custody precondition — Whether a summary election prevents treating the conviction as indictable — Interpretation Act, s. 34(c), applied — Crown proceeded summarily — Young person not convicted of an indictable offence — Custody unavailable under YCJA s. 39(1) — Non-custodial options under s. 42 only — Custody gateway closed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Youth sentencing — Exceptional cases — Do aggravating circumstances make a non-custodial sentence inconsistent with YCJA s. 38 — Disturbing animal cruelty acknowledged — Diminished moral culpability emphasised — Community-based dispositions prioritised — Clearest of cases threshold not met — Custody not justified — Custody rejected<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Youth sentencing — Disposition selection — What non-custodial sentence is appropriate under YCJA ss. 38 and 42 — Guilty plea, rehabilitation, stability, low risk noted — Judicial reprimand as formal rebuke — YCJA s. 119 record retention considered — Portions of s. 34 report to be released to providers — Judicial reprimand imposed