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

• 2026-09-08 Ismail v. Dayr, 2026 ONCJ 531 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — International child support — 2007 Convention, International Recovery of Child Support and Family Maintenance Convention Act, 2023 — Application to establish an order for child support in Ontario — Reciprocity with Norway and procedures under the ISOA and Family Law Rules — Ontario law applied to amount of support — Support deduction order issued<br />Family — Child support — Start date — Prospective support from date application issued — Whether the presumption on start date was rebutted — MacKinnon v. MacKinnon and Balian v. Balian applied — Start date selected for ease of calculation — Child support ordered to start<br />Family — Child support — Income determination — Whether the father provided clear evidence of annual income — Updated sworn financial statement, tax return, Notice of Assessment and pay stubs ordered and filed — Current income information used when available, Vanos v. Vanos and Sarreye v. Sheikhamed applied — Annual income assessed<br />Family — Child support — Undue hardship — Child Support Guidelines, s. 10 — Whether high access costs create undue hardship justifying reduction of table amount — Test from Matthews v. Matthews and onus for documentation considered — Hardship not exceptional, standard of living not lower — Undue hardship claim dismissed<br />Family — Child support — Credits, arrears and payment — What credits should be received for child support paid and “care package” — Credit allowed for support paid and documented “care package”, travel costs not child support — Child support arrears fixed, modest repayment ordered — Arrears payable monthly and enforced by support deduction order issued
• 2026-09-02 R. v. Curran, 2026 ONCJ 523 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Sexual offences against children — R. v. Friesen principles, denunciation and deterrence — What fit sentence for invitation to sexual touching, sexual touching and breach of probation — Aggravating factors include age 14, invasion, secluded outdoor area, moral responsibility — Concurrent custodial terms imposed — Jail sentence imposed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Pre-sentence custody and remand conditions — R. v. Summers credit, R. v. Downes mitigation — Whether remand conditions and mental health impacts mitigate sentence — Evidence accepted of confinement, lockdowns and worsening schizophrenia — Pre-sentence custody credited at 1.5 to 1 — Credit applied, remaining sentence calculated<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Conditional release — Delayed parole ineligibility — Criminal Code, s. 743.6, R. v. Goulet — Whether denunciation or deterrence requires parole delayed to one half of sentence — No heightened violence, brutality or degradation found — No clear evidence of need for exceptional measure — Parole delay refused<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Ancillary orders — Sexual offence prohibitions — Criminal Code, s. 161, s. 109, s. 743.21, SOIRA, DNA Databanking — What ancillary orders are required following convictions — Lifetime SOIRA order, DNA order, weapons prohibition, and non-communication ordered — Section 161 prohibition imposed with submissions invited on wording — Ancillary orders made, victim fine surcharge waived
• 2026-09-02 R. v. Roberts, 2026 ONCJ 524 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired operation and breath demands — Criminal Code, s. 320.14(1)(a) and s. 320.15(1) — Whether reasonable grounds to believe impairment existed to authorise arrest and approved instrument demand — Subjective and objective components assessed — Officer observations weighed against recordings — Grounds not objectively reasonable, demand unlawful — Acquittal entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Refusal to comply with demand — Criminal Code, s. 320.15(1) — Whether refusal charge can stand where approved instrument demand was unlawful — No legal obligation to comply with unlawful demand — Refusal count dismissed despite alternative finding on validity — Acquittal entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Proof of impairment — Criminal Code, s. 320.14(1)(a) — Whether impairment proved beyond a reasonable doubt — Evidence relied on for demand fell short of establishing impairment — Remaining indicia limited to admission of drinking and odour of alcohol — Reasonable doubt found — Acquittal entered<br />Evidence — Video recordings — Dash camera, body worn camera, breath room recordings — Whether objective video evidence undermined officers’ observations of unsteadiness, turn signal use, and slurred speech — Accent distinguished from slurred speech — Reliability concerns with unsupported observations — Crown evidence weakened by recordings — Acquittal entered
• 2026-09-02 Brampton (City) v. Wright, 2026 ONCJ 525 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Provincial offences — Strict liability — Dog Owners’ Liability Act, s. 5.1(a), s. 18(1) — Whether “owner” failed to exercise reasonable precautions to prevent biting or attacking — Credibility, video-recording and photographs supporting actus reus — Due diligence and mistake of fact not proven on balance of probabilities — Convictions entered<br />Evidence — Confessions rule — Voluntariness — Whether animal services officer required to caution before obtaining oral and written statements — Operating mind and absence of caution considered, R. v. Oickle, R. v. Jagrup Singh — Inculpatory utterances and written witness statement not considered or given weight — Convictions entered<br />Statutory interpretation — Interpretation of “attack” — Dog Owners’ Liability Act, s. 5.1(a) — Whether barking, running after, chasing, jumping on, or circling pedestrians constitutes “attacking a person” — Dictionary meaning and Martin v. Hurst reviewed — Facts found to meet definition of “attacking” — Convictions entered<br />Evidence — Opinion evidence — Ordinary witness — Whether supervisor trained to identify dog bites could opine injuries in photographs were dog bites — Lay opinion principles and Mohan framework discussed — Training and detailed description accepted, corroborated by video-recording and witness testimony — Convictions entered
• 2026-09-01 R. v. Giansante, 2026 ONCJ 520 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Drinking and driving — Breath testing — Serious collision investigation — Breath sample evidence admitted — Prohibited blood alcohol concentration within two hours of operating a motor vehicle considered under Criminal Code, s. 320.31(4) — Impairment by alcohol not proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Guilty on excess alcohol charge, not guilty on impaired charge<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter — Right to counsel — Detention and suspension — Whether detention occurred earlier than acknowledged — Psychological detention framework applied (R. v. Grant) — Focused and brief sobriety investigation suspends Charter s. 10(b) for grounds under Criminal Code, ss. 320.27 and 320.28 (R. v. Orbanski) — No s. 10(b) breach found for timing<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter — Counsel of choice — Duty counsel — Whether police prematurely foreclosed opportunity to pursue private counsel — Detainee repeatedly expressed desire to consult a private lawyer — Police treated duty counsel as only available option — Police not required to help search for a lawyer, but cannot limit choice — Charter s. 10(b) breach found<br />Evidence — Charter remedies — Exclusion — Breath samples — Whether admitting breath sample evidence would bring administration of justice into disrepute — Charter s. 24(2) and Grant factors applied, McColman cited — Breach found technical and impact limited because prompt legal advice received — Reliability and centrality of evidence emphasised — Evidence admitted<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Drinking and driving — Proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Impaired operation and excess alcohol — Whether impairment by alcohol proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Collision and inferential bad driving insufficient without supporting observations — Whether prohibited blood alcohol concentration proven within two hours by breath readings and statutory readback — Guilty on excess alcohol charge, acquitted on impaired charge