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

• 2025-09-24 R. v. Hindy, 2025 ONCJ 488 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Firearms offences — Unauthorized possession — Careless storage — Possession of prohibited firearm with accessible ammunition — Accused found guilty of firearms-related offences under sections 91(1), 92(1), 86(1), 94(2), and 95(1)(b) of the Criminal Code — Whether the sawed-off shotgun met the definition of a "firearm" — Crown not required to prove availability of tools to make firearm operable — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46<br />Property — Possession of stolen property — Reasonable doubt — Accused charged with possession of stolen minivan — Evidence of owner’s inconsistent testimony regarding permission to use vehicle — Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew the minivan was stolen — Accused acquitted of possession of stolen property under section 354(1) of the Criminal Code<br />Evidence — Firearms — Operability and adaptability — Sawed-off shotgun found in accused’s possession — Testimony of firearms experts established operability through dry firing and test firing — Adaptation for use as a firearm did not require special expertise or unavailable tools — Definition of "firearm" under section 2 of the Criminal Code satisfied<br />Evidence — Firearms — Capability to cause serious bodily injury or death — Crown not required to conduct velocity testing or "pig's eye test" for conventional firearms — Testimony of firearms experts and circumstantial evidence sufficient to establish capability — Shotgun listed on RCMP Firearms Reference Table — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 2
• 2025-09-24 R. v. Thongdara, 2025 ONCJ 490 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Long-term offender designation — Offender convicted of robbery and designated as a long-term offender — Appropriate sentence balancing public protection, rehabilitation, and proportionality — Whether a penitentiary sentence is required to access rehabilitative treatment — Application of sentencing principles under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2, 753.1(3)<br />Criminal procedure — Pre-sentence custody — Harsh conditions — Offender subjected to lockdowns and triple-bunking during pre-sentence custody — Whether additional credit for pre-sentence custody is warranted — Enhanced credit applied to reflect harsh conditions — R. v. Marshall, 2021 ONCA 344 — Criminal Code, s. 719(3.1)<br />Statutory interpretation — Sentencing principles — Application of proportionality, denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing long-term offenders — Emphasis on public protection under Part XXIV of the Criminal Code — Whether sentencing principles under ss. 718-718.2 apply to long-term offender designations — R. v. Boutilier, 2017 SCC 64 — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2, 753.1(3)
• 2025-09-23 R. v. Gallardo-Madrid, 2025 ONCJ 487 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Sentencing in absentia — Absconding accused — Proportionality in sentencing — Court’s discretion to proceed under Criminal Code section 475 — Sufficient evidence to ensure proportionality — Does absconding negate mitigating factors or justify enhanced emphasis on deterrence? — Criminal Code, ss. 475, 720 — Framework for sentencing in absentia<br />Criminal infractions — Assault with a weapon — Use of imitation firearm — Drug-induced psychosis — Moral culpability — Gravity of offence and harm to victims — Does drug-induced psychosis mitigate culpability when the offender was aware of risks? — Criminal Code, ss. 85(2), 267(a) — Principles of proportionality and moral blameworthiness<br />Criminal procedure — Sentencing principles — General deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation — Violent offences involving imitation firearms — Vulnerable victims — Pregnant victim and psychological harm — How should sentencing balance deterrence and rehabilitation? — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2 — Emphasis on denunciation for serious violent crimes<br />Citizenship and immigration — Collateral consequences of sentencing — Criminal inadmissibility under Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — Impact of custodial sentence on future immigration status — Should sentencing consider immigration consequences for offenders with work permits? — Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27 — Balancing rehabilitation and collateral consequences
• 2025-09-22 Oshungbemi v. Taylor, 2025 ONCJ 483 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Parenting time — Best interests of the child — Temporary parenting time orders — Father and mother proposed different schedules for overnight and holiday visits — Court balanced gradual increases in parenting time with the child’s adjustment needs — Does the proposed parenting time schedule align with the child’s best interests? — Subsections 24(2) to (7) of the Children's Law Reform Act applied<br />Family — Parental rights — Government documentation and international travel — Mother sought to dispense with father’s consent for obtaining government documentation and traveling internationally with the child — Father opposed, citing concerns about frequency of travel and parenting time disruption — Is it in the child’s best interests to dispense with the father’s consent? — Court found father’s conduct obstructive and granted mother’s request<br />Family — Parental rights — International travel by father — Father sought permission to travel internationally with the child — Court found it premature due to the child’s need to adjust to extended overnight visits with the father — Should the father be permitted to travel internationally with the child at this time? — Court dismissed the request but left open the possibility for future orders<br />Family — Child support — Imputation of income — Mother alleged father sheltered income in his corporation to reduce child support obligations — Father claimed an annual salary of $60,000 — Court imputed income of $120,000 based on evidence of corporate earnings and father’s financial control — What income should be imputed to the father for temporary child support? — Section 18 of the Federal Child Support Guidelines applied<br />Family — Child support — Retroactive support — Mother sought temporary child support retroactive to January 1, 2024 — Court found no rebuttal to the presumption of retroactive support — When should the temporary child support order take effect? — Court ordered retroactive support from January 1, 2024, based on imputed income
• 2025-09-22 R. v. Mann, 2025 ONCJ 486 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Possession of a loaded, restricted firearm with a prohibited device — Interprovincial transport and public possession as aggravating factors — First-time offender and collateral consequences as mitigating factors — What is the appropriate sentence for firearm-related offences? — Principles of denunciation, deterrence, and proportionality applied under s. 718 of the Criminal Code<br />Criminal procedure — Breach of court order — Consecutive sentencing — Breach of a court order prohibiting possession of weapons — Should the breach of a court order be treated as a separate, consecutive offence? — Breach treated as distinct behaviour engaging different social interests — Six-month consecutive sentence imposed<br />Criminal procedure — Pre-sentence custody credit — Harsh custodial conditions — Application of Summers and Duncan credit — Lockdowns, triple-bunking, and strict bail conditions considered — How should pre-sentence custody credit be calculated? — Enhanced credit of 574 days applied under s. 719(3.1) of the Criminal Code<br />Citizenship and immigration — Collateral consequences — Deportation — Impact of deportation on sentencing — Should collateral consequences, such as deportation, affect the sentence? — Deportation deemed an inevitable consequence, not a mitigating factor — Proportionality principle upheld<br />Statutory interpretation — Kienapple principle — Overlapping charges — Staying charges under the Kienapple principle — Should certain charges be stayed due to overlapping factual and legal circumstances? — Section 92(1) charge stayed as it arose from the same circumstances as the s. 95(1) charge