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

• 2026-06-04 R. v. Sharaf, 2026 ONCJ 318 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Charter, s. 8 — State agency — Were hospital staff and a security guard acting as agents of the police? — Private actors not subject to the Charter absent governmental function — Cooperation and use of transfer form insufficient — R. v. Buhay, R. v. Daley, R. v. Auclair applied — Charter not engaged<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter, s. 8 — Reasonableness of search and seizure — Did police examination of a patient’s bag and seizure under Criminal Code s. 489(2) breach section 8? — Voluntary transfer from private party, diminished expectation of privacy — Limited inspection to ascertain nature of property — Reasonable grounds formed upon observing controlled substances — Search reasonable, seizure lawful<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter, s. 8 — Reporting obligations — Do deficiencies in the Report to a Justice and absence of a CDSA s. 12.1 report breach section 8? — Good faith completion of Report to a Justice, no material misrepresentation — Lack of admissible proof of Minister’s report filing — Technical breach found, seizure legality unaffected — Technical breach found<br />Evidence — Charter remedies, s. 24(2) — Exclusion of evidence — Should evidence be excluded for a minor administrative section 8 breach? — R. v. Grant framework applied — Breach minor and administrative, minimal impact on privacy — Reliable and probative physical evidence central to prosecution — Admission favours adjudication on the merits — Evidence admitted
• 2026-06-02 R. v. Singh, 2026 ONCJ 314 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Rights and freedoms — Search and seizure — Breath demand delay — Whether breath samples were obtained in a manner that infringed s. 8 — “As soon as practicable” under Criminal Code, s. 320.28(1) — Application of Guenter and Deruelle — Delay alone does not render seizure unreasonable — Section 8 breach not established<br />Rights and freedoms — Arrest or detention — Right to counsel — Whether informational and implementation components under s. 10(b) were breached — Off-duty officer acting as state authority — Incomplete caution and roadside investigative questioning before confirmed consultation — Bartle, Manninen and Grant applied — Section 10(b) breaches established<br />Evidence — Admissibility — Exclusion of evidence — Whether iPhone video, screenshot and roadside statements should be excluded under s. 24(2) — Seriousness of Charter-infringing conduct and impact outweigh truth-seeking — Grant balancing applied, Strachan connection met — Evidence excluded under s. 24(2)<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Impaired operation — Elements — Whether operation or care and control and impairment to any degree proved — Unsafe movement in live traffic, odour of alcohol, red and watery eyes, slight unsteadiness — Boudreault and Stellato applied — Proof beyond a reasonable doubt established — Guilty of impaired operation
• 2026-06-02 R. v. Ogbomo, 2026 ONCJ 312 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Possession — Firearms and controlled substances — Did the Crown prove knowledge and control of the firearm, ammunition, cash, and cocaine in the bedroom? — Elements of constructive and joint possession, s. 2(1) CDSA, s. 4(3) Criminal Code, Terrence, Morelli — Occupancy not a presumption of possession, Lights — No forensic links, shared access, conflicting locations — Acquittals on remaining counts<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Villaroman standard — Is guilt the only reasonable inference on the totality of the evidence? — Gaps and alternative inferences considered logically — Social media posts linked cash to youths — Passport and clothing equivocal — Logic and common sense applied, Villaroman, Megill, Ali, Kruk — Acquittals on remaining counts<br />Evidence — Credibility — W.(D.) analysis — Should A.W.’s testimony claiming possession be accepted or raise reasonable doubt? — Motive to minimize accused’s involvement identified — Implausibilities undermined but residual doubt assessed on whole — Verdict not a choice between Crown and defence, A.J.K. referenced — Reasonable doubt remains on possession — Acquittals on remaining counts<br />Evidence — After-the-fact conduct — Flight — What weight to place on the accused’s flight during a loud, violent entry? — Multiple reasonable explanations unrelated to possession — Flight not more consistent with guilt than innocence — Limited probative value towards knowledge and control — Given little weight in circumstantial analysis — Acquittals on remaining counts
• 2026-06-01 R. v. Toney, 2026 ONCJ 315 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Conditional discharge — Should a conditional discharge under s. 730(1) be granted given denunciation, deterrence and rehabilitation? — First‑time offender, guilty plea, remorse, low risk to reoffend — Proportionality and public interest assessed — Twelve‑month probation imposed with discharge — Employment and parenting circumstances considered — Conditional discharge with probation ordered<br />Indigenous peoples — Sentencing — Gladue and Ipeelee — How do s. 718.2(e) Gladue factors inform the public‑interest analysis for a discharge? — Intergenerational trauma, child welfare involvement, socio‑economic disadvantage recognised — Cultural connection and restorative justice approach emphasised — Overincarceration context noted, different methodology applied — Gladue factors determinative<br />Criminal and statutory offences — Sentencing — Ancillary orders — Are ancillary orders required or appropriate on sentencing for assault with a weapon? — Primary designated offence triggers mandatory DNA order — s. 110 weapons prohibition for two years imposed — Victim fine surcharge waived to support dependants — Ancillary orders imposed
• 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