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

• 2025-06-02 R. v. Wanner, 2025 ONCJ 299 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Detention — Charter rights — Psychological detention — Police conduct at accident scene — When did the police detain the accused? — Whether the accused was detained before the screening demand — Evidentiary burden on the accused to establish psychological detention — R. v. Grant framework applied — No detention found before the screening demand — Charter ss. 8, 9, 10(a), 10(b)<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Unlawful breath demands — Immediacy requirements under s. 320.27(1) of the Criminal Code — Did the police comply with the immediacy requirements for screening demands? — Inconsistencies in officer testimony regarding grounds for demand — Screening demand found unlawful — Charter ss. 8, 9 — R. v. Woods applied<br />Constitution — Charter remedies — Exclusion of evidence — Section 24(2) analysis — Should the results of the breath samples be excluded due to Charter breaches? — Seriousness of police misconduct, impact on accused’s rights, and societal interest in adjudication on the merits — Evidence admitted — R. v. Grant, R. v. McColman applied<br />Criminal infractions — Proof of identity — Circumstantial evidence — Reasonable doubt — Has the Crown proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused was the driver? — Circumstantial evidence analyzed under R. v. Villaroman — Alternative theories ruled implausible — Identity of the driver proven beyond a reasonable doubt
• 2025-05-30 R. v. Kroll, 2025 ONCJ 296 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Impaired operation — Drug impairment — Accused charged with impaired operation of a conveyance under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code — Evidence of erratic behaviour, drug recognition evaluation, and toxicology report — Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused's ability to operate a conveyance was impaired by drugs? — Standard of proof for impaired operation by drugs under s. 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code<br />Evidence — Possession of controlled substances — Methamphetamine — Accused found with methamphetamine in jacket pocket — Certificate of Analyst confirming substance as methamphetamine — Did the Crown prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knowingly possessed methamphetamine? — Knowledge and control as essential elements of possession under s. 4(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act<br />Evidence — Drug recognition evaluation — Toxicology — Admissibility and sufficiency of evidence — Drug recognition evaluator's opinion corroborated by toxicology report — Urine sample containing methamphetamine and GHB — Expert evidence on drug effects and impairment — Was the evidence sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? — Framework for assessing circumstantial evidence and expert testimony in criminal cases<br />Criminal procedure — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Crown's reliance on circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, and statutory presumptions — Did the Crown meet its burden of proof for both charges? — Application of s. 320.31(6) of the Criminal Code regarding drug impairment and toxicology corroboration
• 2025-05-30 R. v. Bhandal, 2025 ONCJ 297 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Impaired driving — Operation of a motor vehicle — Circumstantial evidence — Defendant found alone in a crashed vehicle, impaired, with blood on the driver’s airbag — Whether the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the driver — Standard for circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman applied — Crown established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under section 320.14(1)(a) of the Criminal Code<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Blood evidence — Deployment of airbags — Defendant’s location in the vehicle — Whether circumstantial evidence excluded all reasonable alternatives to the defendant being the driver — Court rejected speculative theories of another driver escaping — Standard for circumstantial evidence from R. v. Villaroman applied<br />Criminal procedure — Breath demand — Reasonable and probable grounds — Police observations at the scene — Defendant’s impairment, blood on driver’s airbag, and lack of other occupants — Whether police belief that the defendant was the driver was objectively reasonable — Standard for reasonable grounds from R. v. Storrey and R. v. Chehil applied — Breath demand found valid under section 320.15(1) of the Criminal Code
• 2025-05-30 R. v. Smith-Stebbins, 2025 ONCJ 298 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Statutory interpretation — Highway Traffic Act — Criminal Code — Interpretation of "public place" under section 320.24(8) — Whether section 12(1)(d) of the Highway Traffic Act applies to private parking lots — Whether a hotel parking lot constitutes a "public place" under section 320.24(8) — Modern approach to statutory interpretation applied — Provisions interpreted in context of public safety and accessibility<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Sections 8 and 9 — Arbitrary detention — Search and seizure — Whether stop in private parking lot for Highway Traffic Act offense was lawful — Application of R v McColman and R v Hajivasilis — No breach of sections 8 or 9 found — Highway Traffic Act provisions not limited to highways<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Section 320.24(8) — Public place — Criminal Code driving prohibition — Whether hotel parking lot constitutes a "public place" — Interpretation of "public place" as areas with public access and potential safety risks — Crown evidence sufficient to establish public access to parking lot<br />Criminal procedure — Charter of Rights — Section 10(b) — Right to counsel — Failure to provide right to counsel advice a third time at roadside — Minor technical breach found — No evidence obtained in a manner engaging section 24(2) — Breach did not impact accused's interests — Evidence not excluded
• 2025-05-29 Dey v. Cronk, 2025 ONCJ 294 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Parenting orders — Material change in circumstances — Motion to vary parenting time and decision-making arrangements under the Children's Law Reform Act — Whether a material change in circumstances was established — Material change found due to the child's age, parental conflict, and lack of a specific parenting schedule in the original order — Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 29<br />Family — Best interests of the child — Parenting time — Whether additional overnight parenting time during the school week is in the child's best interests — Court declined to extend parenting time due to parental conflict, lack of communication, and the child's expressed preferences — Emphasis on stability and minimizing transitions during the school week — Children's Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 24(2)<br />Family — Parental conflict — Protective orders — Court imposed additional orders to limit parental conflict and shield the child from exposure to disputes — Orders included restrictions on communication, transportation responsibilities, and prohibitions on discussing litigation with the child — Focus on reducing conflict and ensuring the child's emotional well-being<br />Evidence — Voice of the Child Report — Weight of child's views and preferences — Child expressed a desire to maintain primary residence with the mother but spend more time with the father — Court gave significant weight to the child's views as expressed in the Voice of the Child Report, finding them clear, independent, and consistent — Report prepared by an experienced clinician following best practices