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

• 2026-10-01 R. v. Beet-Benmergui, 2026 ONCJ 574 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Seizure and detention — Return of property — Criminal Code, s. 490(9)(c) order declaring lawful entitlement — Funds seized during criminal investigation, charges withdrawn or stayed — Whether return order must be complied with absent further proceedings — Order re-issued and immediate return directed<br />Procedure — Enforcement of court orders — Compliance with return order — Whether police may refuse to comply with prior s. 490(9)(c) order — Court orders must be obeyed unless stayed, set aside, or overturned — Reliance on advice from Civil Law Branch addressed — Application granted, return ordered<br />Property — Detention of seized property — Civil forfeiture interface — Civil Remedies Act, 2001, s. 18.2 invoked to maintain possession — Whether s. 18.2 authorises continued detention despite criminal return order — Need for interlocutory Superior Court order emphasised — Continued detention rejected, property returned<br />Procedure — Appeals — Finality of s. 490 orders — Criminal Code, s. 490(17) appeal right for “person who feels aggrieved” — No appeal taken within 30-day period — Whether return order can be effectively paused without appeal or stay — Collateral attack rejected, order enforced<br />Statutory interpretation — Crown positions — Indivisibility and fairness — Whether Crown may take inconsistent positions between Criminal and Civil Law divisions on lawful entitlement — Notice to accused regarding potential CRA proceedings discussed — Role as Minister of Justice and fairness principles referenced — No determinative ruling required, application allowed and return ordered
• 2026-10-01 R. v. C.H., 2026 ONCJ 575 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Youth Criminal Justice Act — Access to youth records — Youth Criminal Justice Act, s. 123 — Crown application for access to youth records for s. 752.1 Criminal Code assessment — Records not yet before the Youth Court — Access to sealed materials to be determined under s. 123(1) test — Matter to proceed<br />Procedure — Motions — Dismissal — Whether Crown’s application should be dismissed as premised on inaccessible youth information — Preliminary issue on reliance grounds — Crown entitled to rely on information received in support of s. 123 application — Application not dismissed — Matter proceeds<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Youth Criminal Justice Act — Records and publication — Youth Criminal Justice Act, ss. 2, 110, 118 — Whether CCAS child protection files are “records” kept under the YCJA — Whether obtaining and using CCAS records by production order is “publication” — CCAS records not YCJA records — No publication found<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Youth Criminal Justice Act — Disclosure to service providers — Youth Criminal Justice Act, s. 125(6) and s. 125(7) — Whether caseworker notes were founded on information disclosed under s. 125(6) — Notes appeared sourced from workers, caregivers, family members, or the young person — s. 125(7) not engaged — Reliance permitted<br />Procedure — Youth court — Sealing and in-camera review — Procedure on s. 123 application where YCJA provides none — Records to be delivered under subpoena to the court and held under seal — Parties permitted to review records in an in-camera fashion for submissions — R. v. P.A.D. endorsed — Procedure ordered
• 2026-10-01 R. v. Duke, 2026 ONCJ 580 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Robbery — Identity — Circumstantial case — Whether circumstantial evidence proves the identity of the robber beyond a reasonable doubt — CCTV video, exhibit photos of jacket, maroon hatchback, stolen laptop, and location pinging considered collectively — Only reasonable inference is guilt — Guilty of robbery<br />Evidence — Video evidence — Assessment of reliability — Whether CCTV video should be preferred over complainant’s description of robber’s clothing — CCTV repeatedly reviewed using VLC zoom feature — Robber’s jacket found neither a vest nor orange — Video found best available evidence on clothing and pattern comparison — Identity inference supported — Conviction entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Reasonable doubt — Investigative gaps — Whether absence of further physical and investigative evidence leaves a reasonable doubt — No DNA evidence, purse not dusted for prints, no GPS download, jacket not physically in evidence — Time gap and unknown comings and goings considered — Absence of evidence does not change available inferences — Guilty of robbery<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Statements to police — Utterance evidence — Whether accused’s utterance to police is exculpatory or raises a reasonable doubt — Accused said he was dropped off by a friend, was banging on sister’s door, had Court in the morning — Even if believed, not fundamentally inconsistent with guilt — Does not raise reasonable doubt on totality — Guilty of robbery
• 2026-09-29 R. v. S., 2026 ONCJ 572 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sexual offences against children — Sentencing — Whether four years’ imprisonment is proportionate for sexual interference and invitation to sexual touching — Denunciation and deterrence given primary consideration under Criminal Code, ss. 718 and 718.1 — Breach of trust, prolonged abuse, profound victim impact assessed — Sentence imposed concurrently — Four years’ imprisonment<br />Procedure — Kienapple — Multiple convictions — Whether sexual assault and sexual interference arise from the same delict — Application of Kienapple v. The Queen, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729 — Sexual assault conviction not a distinct wrong supporting a separate conviction — Sentencing proceeds on remaining convictions — Conviction stayed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Conditional sentence — Fitness for community-based disposition — Whether age and significant health challenges make a conditional sentence available and appropriate — Reliance on R. v. Proulx, 2000 SCC 5 and R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 — Correctional capacity to manage dialysis considered — Conditional sentence rejected — Imprisonment ordered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Criminal Code, s. 161 — Whether a s. 161 order is necessary to protect the public or accomplish sentencing objectives — Age, longstanding medical limitations, and no evidence of subsequent similar offending considered — Potential interference with access to health-related services weighed — Order found unnecessary — s. 161 order declined
• 2026-09-29 R. v. McPhillips, 2026 ONCJ 573 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired driving — Excess blood-alcohol — Charge of having a blood-alcohol concentration exceeding the legal limit within two hours of driving — Roadside alcohol screening test and approved instrument breath samples relied on — Charter-based defence rejected on the merits — Guilty finding entered — Guilty verdict<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter, s. 7 — Full answer and defence — Body-worn camera — Whether removal or muting of BWC violated s. 7 or constituted abuse of process — No constitutional obligation to record every interaction — No actual prejudice shown and no deliberate suppression found — No Charter breach found<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Breath demands — Criminal Code, ss. 320.27 and 320.28 — Whether ASD demand was made immediately after suspicion formed — Whether approved instrument demand was made as soon as practicable — Odour of alcohol and ASD fail accepted as grounds — Delay found reasonably prompt — Demands lawful<br />Evidence — Charter, s. 24(2) — Exclusion of evidence — Breath readings — Whether breath samples and roadside observations should be excluded due to alleged Charter violations — No violations established under s. 7 or s. 10(b) — Application to exclude breath-sample evidence dismissed — Evidence admitted