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

• 2025-08-11 R. v. Mackenzie, 2025 ONCJ 420 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Threatening — Assault with a weapon — Breach of recognizance — Offender pleaded guilty to three charges — Offender's criminal record included 28 convictions, including violent and weapons-related offences — What is the appropriate sentence considering the offender's background and mitigating factors? — Sentencing must be proportional to the seriousness of the offence and the offender's moral culpability under s. 718 of the Criminal Code<br />Criminal procedure — Sentencing principles — Guilty plea — Rehabilitation — Offender completed multiple rehabilitative programs in custody — Offender expressed insight into his behaviour and a desire to improve — Should the offender's rehabilitative efforts mitigate the need for further incarceration? — Rehabilitation is a key sentencing objective under s. 718 of the Criminal Code<br />Indigenous peoples — Gladue principles — Systemic factors — Offender's Indigenous background — Lack of Gladue reports in prior sentencings — Should the offender's Indigenous background and systemic factors influence the sentencing decision? — Courts must consider systemic and background factors affecting Indigenous offenders under s. 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code<br />Health — Mental health — Bipolar disorder — PTSD — Offender diagnosed with multiple mental health conditions — Offender's mental health issues contributed to offending behaviour — Should the offender's mental health history mitigate the sentence? — Mental health considerations are relevant to assessing moral culpability and crafting a fit sentence<br />Rights and freedoms — Pre-sentence custody — Correctional system conditions — Overcrowding — Lack of medical care — Offender experienced poor conditions in pre-sentence custody — Should systemic issues in the correctional system influence sentencing? — Courts may consider pre-sentence custody conditions when determining a fit sentence
• 2025-08-06 Ontario (Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development) v. Apogee Ceramics Inc., 2025 ONCJ 418 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Workplace health and safety — Joint submissions — Public interest test — Corporate defendants — Sentencing — Court rejected a joint submission proposing a $35,000 fine for a workplace safety violation — Did the joint submission properly incorporate inflation and reflect current market realities? — Public interest test from Anthony-Cook applied — Fine increased to $55,000 to account for inflation and ensure deterrence<br />Statutory interpretation — Public welfare offences — Occupational Health and Safety Act — Corporate liability — Court considered whether sentencing authorities older than five years are presumptively unreliable due to inflation — Does the failure to adjust fines for inflation render a joint submission not in the public interest? — Presumption of unreliability for outdated sentencing authorities established
• 2025-08-06 R. v. Allaby, 2025 ONCJ 414 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Conditional sentence orders (CSO) — Sexual interference — Offender sentenced to 18-month CSO with 3 years’ probation for sexual interference involving an 8-year-old child — Whether a CSO is consistent with denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation — Conditional sentences with onerous conditions as an alternative to incarceration — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.01, 742.1 — Framework for imposing CSOs in child sexual offence cases<br />Criminal infractions — Sexual interference — Sentencing principles — Offender pleaded guilty to sexual interference involving a child — Whether incarceration is necessary to prioritize denunciation and deterrence — Application of R. v. Friesen and R. v. Pike — Balancing community safety with offender rehabilitation — Criminal Code, s. 151 — Proportionality in sentencing for child sexual offences<br />Evidence — Mitigating factors — Offender’s participation in therapy and demonstrated remorse — Risk assessment indicating low risk of recidivism — Impact of offender’s rehabilitative efforts on sentencing — Whether mitigating factors justify a conditional sentence — Role of pre-sentence reports and expert evidence in sentencing decisions
• 2025-08-05 R. v. Cellupica, 2025 ONCJ 415 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sexual assault — Actus reus and mens rea — Accused charged with two counts of sexual assault under section 271 of the Criminal Code — Did the accused commit sexual assault by touching the complainant’s breasts and vaginal area without consent? — Governing framework for sexual assault under the Criminal Code, including actus reus and mens rea elements<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability of complainant — Trauma-informed approach — Complainant alleged two incidents of sexual assault — Complainant’s testimony included inconsistencies and memory issues — Should the court apply a trauma-informed approach to assess credibility and reliability? — Principles from R. v. G.M.C. and R. v. J.L. applied to evaluate trauma and memory inconsistencies<br />Evidence — Sexual nature of touching — Implied consent — Accused admitted to touching complainant’s breasts during the second incident but claimed it was a "joke" — Was the touching of a sexual nature, and does the defence of "implied consent" apply? — Test from R. v. Chase and R. v. J.A. applied to determine sexual nature and consent requirements<br />Evidence — Testimony of the accused — Reasonable doubt — Accused denied the first incident and claimed "implied consent" for the second — Accused’s testimony included inconsistencies and implausible explanations — Should the accused’s testimony raise a reasonable doubt? — Framework for assessing accused’s testimony and credibility in sexual assault cases
• 2025-08-05 Apolaya v. Howell, 2025 ONCJ 419 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Parenting time — Child support — Leave to proceed with motion to change — Non-compliance with prior court orders — Mother sought retroactive leave to proceed with motion to change parenting and child support orders — Whether leave should be granted despite prior orders requiring leave — Test for granting leave under Kim v. McIntosh — Leave denied due to abuse of process and lack of exceptional circumstances.<br />Family — Abuse of process — Re-litigation of resolved issues — High-conflict parenting disputes — Mother’s motion to change struck due to repeated non-compliance with court orders and attempts to re-litigate finalized issues — Court emphasized need for stability for the child and deterrence of vexatious litigation — Striking pleadings deemed proportionate remedy.<br />Civil procedure — Security for costs — Request for $25,000 security for costs before future motions to change — Whether security for costs appropriate under Family Law Rules, r. 24(20) — Court dismissed request, finding existing leave requirements sufficient to ensure judicial oversight — Security for costs not imposed as an additional barrier to access to justice.<br />Civil procedure — Remedies for non-compliance — Striking pleadings — Judicial discretion under Family Law Rules, r. 1(8) — Mother’s repeated non-compliance with orders and litigation conduct warranted striking of pleadings — Court administration directed not to issue future motions to change without leave of the court.