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

• 2026-03-30 Milton (Town) v. Sidhu, 2026 ONCJ 178 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Municipalities — By-laws — Remediation orders — Municipal Act, 2001, s. 431 — Is a remediation order necessary and what scope is proper? — Purpose to correct the contravention emphasised — Terms requiring permit application, removal of fill, restoration, access for officials, notice to purchasers — Defendants’ topographical survey proposal not appropriate — Correcting the contravention required — Remediation order granted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Regulatory offences — What is a fit monetary penalty given remediation costs? — Paramount objective of general deterrence applied, Cotton Felts considered — Costs of compliance treated as component of total penalty, R. v. Brown — Potential environmental harm aggravating, absence of harm neutral, Torroco Industries — Fine reduced by 25 percent — Fines of $7500 each imposed<br />Statutory interpretation — Municipal by-law — Exemptions — Does the s. 3.4(3) “maintenance” exemption apply? — Size increased and dimensions altered beyond maintenance — Disjunctive with by-law purpose and s. 2.3 prohibition — Definition of “site alteration” engaged — King v. 2424155 Ontario Inc. cited on interpretation — Exemption not mitigating — Exemption inapplicable
• 2026-03-27 R. v. Jackson, 2026 ONCJ 175 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Firearms possession — Fundamental purpose and principle in s. 718 and s. 718.1 — Sentencing for firearms prioritising denunciation and general deterrence — Appropriate global notional sentence for multiple weapons related offences — Aggravating and mitigating circumstances assessed — Notional global sentence set at 12 years<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing ranges — Repeat s. 95 offender — Post‑2023 regime of a 14‑year maximum sentence — Whether range must be increased for s. 95 — New range for repeat s. 95 offender identified as 10 to 14 years — Parliament’s intention signalled in Bill C21 — Range increased<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Pre‑sentence custody — R. v. Summers credit and R. v. Duncan credit — What credit should be applied for harsh pre‑sentence custody conditions — 685 days at Toronto South Detention Centre found harsh, damp and unhygienic — One year Duncan credit plus 1,028 days Summers credit — 8.2 years to serve<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Consecutive and concurrent sentences — Totality — How to structure consecutive and concurrent terms without undue harshness — Combined sentence apportioned by count and concurrency — Court to hear Kienapple submissions — s. 109 order for life and DNA order — Sentence apportioned and ancillary orders made
• 2026-03-27 R. v. Xiong, 2026 ONCJ 174 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Right to counsel, immediacy — Did police inform immediately upon arrest under s. 10(b)? — Eight-minute delay with no safety concerns — Purpose to mitigate legal jeopardy and psychological disadvantage — Authorities applied R. v. Debot, R. v. Suberu, R. v. Pino, R. v. Willier — Breach found<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Language and interpretation — Do special circumstances require a Mandarin interpreter for s. 10(b) information? — Objective indicators of limited English comprehension — Video shows non-understanding of cautions and breath demands — R. v. Vanstaceghem and R. v. Barros-DaSilva applied — Failure tantamount to not providing rights to counsel — Breach found<br />Evidence — Exclusion of evidence — Charter breaches — Should breath samples be excluded under s. 24(2)? — Grant framework applied, seriousness and impact weigh strongly — Reliability and societal interest considered with R. v. Tim and R. v. Harrison — Balancing favours dissociation from misconduct — Breath samples excluded
• 2026-03-26 Durham (Regional Municipality) v. Samaraweera, 2026 ONCJ 183 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Provincial offences — Speeding — Highway Traffic Act, s. 128 — Certified evidence trial — Whether speeding proved where prosecution filed only a Part I Certificate of Offence — Interaction of POA trial provisions and certified statements considered — Elements of speeding established beyond a reasonable doubt — Conviction entered<br />Evidence — Certified evidence — Provincial Offences Act, s. 48.1 — Is a Part I Certificate of Offence “certified evidence” proving facts absent evidence to the contrary? — Ordinary meaning of “certificate” and “certify” applied — Certificates contain certified statements admissible under s. 48.1(2)1 — Reliance on Regalado and Iagolnik — Certified statements accepted<br />Statutory interpretation — Conflict and coherence — POA s. 48.1 and HTA s. 205.21 — Does s. 48.1 apply to non-automated HTA offences? — Overlap not conflict, harmonious reading adopted — Revocation of O. Reg. 132/14 s. 1 supports availability for speeding — No exclusivity in HTA Part XIV.2 — Certified evidence available for HTA offences<br />Procedure — Fair trial safeguards — Cross-examination order — Does proceeding under s. 48.1 reverse the onus or impair full answer and defence, and does s. 49(4) provide a remedy? — Onus on prosecution preserved by s. 48.1(4) — Ability to seek officer attendance under s. 49(4) a valid safeguard — Fair trial preserved<br />Evidence — Sufficiency — Certified statements only — Whether the Certificate of Offence alone can establish speeding beyond a reasonable doubt under s. 48.1 — Section 46 and s. 48.1 read together — No obligation to call viva voce evidence — Absence of evidence to the contrary decisive — Certificate of Offence sufficient to prove offence
• 2026-03-23 R. v. Andriano, 2026 ONCJ 159 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Disclosure in POA matters — Whether additional first-party disclosure should be ordered — Relevance assessed to the charge and reasonably possible defences — FOI-obtained documents support potential defences and Charter application — Duty to furnish field notes, memoranda, investigators files engaged — Order to search records and disclose without impeding pending Charter dates — Disclosure ordered<br />Evidence — Crown disclosure — Threshold of relevance under Stinchcombe — Does the low threshold of usefulness to the defence govern POA disclosure — Stinchcombe, R. v. Taillefer and R. v. Duguay, and R. v. Egger applied — Relevance favours disclosure of inculpatory and exculpatory information — Little information exempt from duty — Disclosure ordered<br />Procedure — Onus — Accused’s initial onus to justify disclosure — Whether the defendant established a basis to obligate the Crown to search, review, and argue exclusion — R. v. Gateway Industries Ltd considered — Initial fishing concerns overcome by FOI materials and demonstrated relevance — Basis for court-ordered disclosure established — Disclosure ordered<br />Procedure — Prosecution response — Effect of failure to oppose disclosure — Whether the Crown’s non-response indicates no opposition — Initial opposition contrasted with no reply to renewed motion — Court infers no opposition and proceeds on relevance and onus findings — Order for production issued — Disclosure ordered