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

• 2025-07-17 Halton (Region) v. 614128 Ontario Ltd., 2025 ONCJ 384 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Traffic offences — Red-light violations — Vehicle owner liability — Defendant charged under section 144(18.1) and section 207 of the Highway Traffic Act for failing to stop at a red-light — Whether the prosecution proved the offence beyond a reasonable doubt — Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, ss. 144(18.1), 207<br />Evidence — Ownership of vehicle — Certificate of ownership — Whether certified Ministry of Transportation documents and photographs establish ownership of the vehicle under section 207 of the Highway Traffic Act — Deemed ownership based on number plate registration — Burden of proof on defendant to rebut deemed ownership — Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 207(4)<br />Criminal procedure — Red-light camera system — Certificate evidence — Whether the prosecution established that the red-light camera system was functioning correctly at the time of the alleged offence — Admissibility of certified statements under section 205.21 of the Highway Traffic Act — No evidence to the contrary presented — Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 205.21<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Inferences from red-light camera photographs — Whether the prosecution needed to lead evidence of the ability of the vehicle to stop and turn within the timeframe captured — Reasonable inferences drawn from speed and movement of the vehicle — Standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33
• 2025-07-17 R. v. Mughal, 2025 ONCJ 386 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Joint submissions — Conditional sentence — Offender pleaded guilty to possession of stolen property over $5,000 — Joint submission for six-month conditional sentence with probation — Should the court accept the joint submission? — Test from R. v. Anthony-Cook applied — Joint submission accepted as not contrary to public interest or administration of justice<br />Criminal infractions — Sentencing principles — Proportionality — Offender’s degree of responsibility — Offence involved possession of a stolen vehicle — No prior criminal record — Does proportionality under section 718.1 of the Criminal Code support a conditional sentence? — Sentence must balance denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation — Conditional sentence imposed<br />Health — Offender’s personal circumstances — Gunshot injuries — Offender recovering from multiple gunshot wounds requiring ongoing medical care — How do the offender’s injuries and rehabilitation needs affect sentencing? — Court considers physical limitations and rehabilitation needs in imposing a conditional sentence<br />Criminal procedure — Sentencing evidence — Additional facts read into the record — Offender disputed additional facts for sentencing purposes — Should the court consider additional facts when the guilty plea was limited to one count? — Court ruled additional facts inadmissible without proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Sentence based solely on admitted facts
• 2025-07-14 R. v. Baulk, 2025 ONCJ 375 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Child luring — Sentencing — Aggravating and mitigating factors — Offender engaged in prolonged sexualized conversations with a fictional 14-year-old child — Offender pled guilty and expressed remorse — What is the appropriate sentence for child luring under section 172.1(1) of the Criminal Code? — Sentencing must balance denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation — Sentence of 22 months imposed<br />Criminal procedure — Sentencing — Aggravating factors — Offender was a teacher at the time of the offence — Whether the offender’s professional status should be considered an aggravating factor — Status as a teacher deemed neutral — Sentencing must focus on the offender’s conduct and insight into harm caused<br />Child protection — Prohibition orders — Section 161(1) of the Criminal Code — Offender prohibited from employment involving minors, unsupervised contact with minors, and unsupervised use of social media — Should a prohibition order be imposed, and what terms are appropriate? — Prohibition order imposed for five years post-sentence to balance protection of minors and offender rehabilitation<br />Criminal procedure — Weapons prohibition — Section 109 of the Criminal Code — Whether a weapons prohibition order should be imposed in a child luring case — Violence not used, threatened, or attempted — Section 109 order not imposed — Interpretation of “violence” under section 109 clarified
• 2025-07-14 R. v. McCausland, 2025 ONCJ 376 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Plea agreements — Revocation of plea agreements — Defendant alleged that the Crown revoked a plea agreement for a conditional sentence — Was there a valid plea agreement between the Crown and the defendant? — Test for establishing a plea agreement and its revocation — R v Nixon, 2011 SCC 34 — Application dismissed as no plea agreement was proven<br />Contracts — Plea negotiations versus plea agreements — Distinction between discussions and binding agreements — Evidence of plea discussions initiated by the Crown but no formal agreement reached — Did the Crown extend a binding plea agreement? — Courts require fundamental terms to be settled for a binding agreement — Electek Power Services Inc. v Greenfield Energy Centre Limited Partnership, 2022 ONSC 894<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Abuse of process — Section 24(1) remedies — Defendant alleged Crown misconduct in revoking a plea agreement — Did the Crown's conduct amount to an abuse of process under section 24(1) of the Charter? — Abuse of process requires egregious conduct compromising trial fairness or judicial integrity — R v Nixon, 2011 SCC 34; R v Brunelle, 2024 SCC 3 — No evidence of Crown misconduct found<br />Constitution — Charter remedies — Stay of proceedings — Defendant sought a stay of proceedings as a remedy for alleged abuse of process — If abuse of process is proven, is a stay of proceedings the appropriate remedy? — Stay of proceedings requires the "clearest of cases" test — R v Nixon, 2011 SCC 34 — Application dismissed as no abuse of process was established
• 2025-07-14 R. v. Russell, 2025 ONCJ 377 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Remote testimony — Presumption of in-person testimony — Crown application to allow police witness to testify remotely via videoconference — Witness located in Thunder Bay, trial in Pembroke — Should the presumption of in-person testimony under section 715.21 of the Criminal Code be overcome? — Presumption rebutted where remote testimony does not compromise trial fairness or the accused’s rights — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 714.1, 715.21<br />Evidence — Remote testimony — Factors under section 714.1 of the Criminal Code — Location and personal circumstances of witness — Costs of in-person testimony — Suitability of remote location — Nature of evidence — Fairness of trial — Whether remote testimony is appropriate considering logistical and fairness concerns — Balancing practical issues with trial fairness — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 714.1<br />Evidence — Fair trial — Remote testimony and accused’s rights — Accused opposing remote testimony of police witness — Whether remote testimony affects the accused’s right to a fair and public hearing — Court finding no prejudice to fairness or public access — Remote testimony permitted with safeguards — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, ss. 714.1, 715.21