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

• 2026-05-29 R. v. Lai, 2026 ONCJ 308 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired driving and 80+ — Roadside arrest and breath testing — Whether the defendant is guilty of operating over the legal BAC limit — Qualified breath technician obtained truncated BAC readings of 160 and 140 — Kienapple stay considered for related count — Conviction on over 80 entered — Guilty of operating over legal BAC<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Proof of impairment — Impaired driving — Has the Crown proven impairment of the ability to drive beyond a reasonable doubt — Unexplained single-car collision and odour of alcohol insufficient — No advancement beyond initial indicia — Consumption proved but impairment speculative — Acquittal on impaired driving<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter ss. 7, 8, 9 — Reasonable grounds — Did police have reasonable grounds to arrest and make a breath demand when relying on a colleague’s unexplained conclusion — Distinction between arrest and conscriptive breath demand emphasized, R. v. Beaver, 2022 SCC 54 — Roadside officer lacked independent grounds to demand breath — Breath demand by roadside officer unreasonable<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter ss. 7, 8, 9 — Qualified breath technician demand — Can a later QBT demand based on information available at roadside cure a groundless roadside demand — Curative function recognized, R. v. Guenter, 2016 ONCA 572 — QBT relied on indicia observed by first officer, not post-detention back-fill — No Charter breach<br />Evidence — Admissibility — Exclusion of evidence — Charter s. 24(2) — Should breath test results be excluded under Grant if a breach occurred — Technical, unintentional breach with minimal impact found, R. v. Grant — Strong societal interest in adjudicating impaired-related offences on their merits — Breath test evidence admitted
• 2026-05-28 R. v. Barletta, 2026 ONCJ 300 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 9 — Investigative detention — Was the initial detention arbitrary where the accused was unresponsive in a running vehicle stopped in an intersection — Application of R. v. Mann to objectively concerning public safety circumstances — Handcuffing assessed contextually under R. v. Grant — Detention found lawful — Charter breach not established — Charter application dismissed<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Arrest — Reasonable grounds — Whether arrest for impaired operation met the Storrey standard on the totality of circumstances — Indicia included disorientation, red eyes, difficult to understand speech, unsteadiness, vehicle stationary through light cycles — Video context did not negate observations — Impermissible hindsight from breath results rejected — Arrest lawful<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter s. 10(a) and s. 10(b) — Right to be informed and to counsel — Whether reasons were conveyed without delay and meaningful access to counsel provided — Dynamic scene permitted brief delay in articulating reasons — Counsel of choice contacted and consulted after firearm discovery — No police interference — No breach of s. 10(a) or s. 10(b)<br />Evidence — Exclusion of evidence — Charter s. 24(2) — Should the loaded firearm be excluded if a breach were found — Grant framework applied to seriousness, impact, and adjudication on the merits — State conduct at low end, minimal impact, strong societal interest in reliable firearm evidence recognised in R. v. Omar — Evidence admitted
• 2026-05-27 R. v. MacDonald, 2026 ONCJ 294 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired driving and provincial offences — Over 80 and impaired operation — Whether Charter application is determinative of the trial — Directed verdict on impaired operation granted — HTA suspended driving and permit counts conceded — Over 80 under s. 320.14(1)(b) fails after exclusion of breath evidence — Liquor and tobacco counts withdrawn — Over 80 charge dismissed, HTA counts guilty<br />Rights and freedoms — Detention and right to counsel — Initial stop for suspended driving — Whether failure to inform reasons and provide s. 10(b) rights breached Charter — Investigative detention triggered without clear and simple language — Mann, Bartle, Suberu applied — Arbitrary detention under s. 9 found — Rights to counsel not provided without delay — Charter breaches found<br />Rights and freedoms — Roadside screening — Forthwith requirement under s. 320.27 — Whether ASD demand not made immediately after reasonable suspicion — Odour of alcohol detected opened forthwith window — Quansah considered on immediacy — Delay unjustified where ASD present and no objective safety basis — ss. 8, 9 and 10(a), 10(b) infringed — ASD demand invalid<br />Rights and freedoms — Use of restraints — Handcuffing during ASD testing — Whether handcuffing rendered detention arbitrary and seizure unreasonable — No objectively grounded safety concerns — Virk applied on unjustified handcuffing — Psychological restraint escalated to physical restraint without necessity — s. 9 and s. 8 violations established — Charter breaches found<br />Evidence — Exclusion of evidence — Charter s. 24(2) — Whether breath samples should be excluded following multiple breaches — Grant and Le framework applied, Zacharias and Tim considered — Serious, cumulative and independent violations impacting protected interests — Reliability acknowledged but long term repute favours exclusion — Breath test results excluded, over 80 charge dismissed
• 2026-05-25 R. v. McSevney, 2026 ONCJ 288 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Procedure — Electronic method — Remote trial — Provincial Offences Act, s. 83.1(2), s. 83.1(4) — Should the court permit a remote trial or require in-person attendance? — Interests of justice and fair trial assessed — Self-represented defendant, voluminous documentary evidence, time zone and technical limits — Crown seeking custody, most witnesses local — In-person attendance ordered — Application denied<br />Statutory interpretation — Provincial Offences Act — Interests of justice — Scope of discretion under s. 83.1 — What factors guide the exercise of s. 83.1 discretion? — Legislative gap noted, guidance drawn from Criminal Code s. 715.23 and R. v. Cowan, 2021 SCC 45 — Consideration of Noori and Zarwari on reasons and in-person preference — Discretion exercised to require in-person attendance<br />Procedure — Self-represented litigants — Complex documentary trial — Appropriateness of remote participation for a self-represented defendant — Limited ability to provide assistance remotely, technical challenges with digital disclosure — Reduced access to Duty Counsel, Officer in Charge and Crown during proceedings — Societal interest in an effective, expeditious trial — Remote participation not appropriate — In-person trial required
• 2026-05-22 Clarington (Regional Municipality) v. 2845749 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCJ 287 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Provincial offences — Planning Act charge — Use other than a permitted use — Whether outdoor storage exceeded permitted accessory use — Site plan agreement limiting outside storage considered — Elements of offence under s. 67 established — Provincial Offences Court jurisdiction engaged — Convictions on both counts — Guilty of both counts<br />Municipalities — Zoning — Accessory use — Is outdoor storage of vehicles a permitted accessory use and to what extent — Definition of “Accessory Use” applied — No express prohibition in C6-8 zone — Site plan agreement restricting outside storage to 20 vehicles and annual clearing — Accessory use must remain subordinate and incidental — Outdoor storage capped at 20 vehicles<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Proof — Beyond a reasonable doubt — Whether the evidence proved use other than a permitted use — Numbers of vehicles stored outside on offence dates established — Accessory use exceeded and became a separate use — Site plan agreement non-compliance shown — Prosecution witnesses accepted limited accessory use only — Charges proven beyond a reasonable doubt — Convictions entered<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Defences — Due diligence — Whether reasonable care or reasonable mistake of fact established — Strict liability offence per R. v. Sault Ste. Marie and R. v. Pontes — Civic duty to ascertain obligations per Lévis v. Tétreault — Mistake of law barred by POA s. 81 and R. v. Raham — Non-specific inquiry and increased storage inadequate — Due diligence defence rejected<br />Procedure — Abuse of process — Multiple informations — Should the second charge be dismissed or stayed as unfair and punitive — Particulars and fairness concerns addressed — Stay a remedy of last resort per R v Brunelle — No prejudice to full answer and defence — Second charge for continuing land use not unfair — Dismissal or stay refused