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

• 2025-04-16 R. v. McCluskey, 2025 ONCJ 212 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Constitution — Charter of Rights — Sections 8 and 9 — Arbitrary detention — Invalid ASD demand — RIDE check — Detention became unlawful when the ASD demand could not be immediately fulfilled — Whether the defendant’s section 8 and 9 Charter rights were breached — R. v. Breault, 2023 SCC 9 applied — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 9<br />Evidence — Breath samples — Charter breaches — Consequential breaches — Invalid ASD demand — Whether the breath samples collected at the station were admissible — Evidence obtained following Charter breaches must be excluded unless justified under section 24(2) — R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 applied<br />Rights and freedoms — Charter of Rights — Sections 10(a) and 10(b) — Right to counsel — Reasons for detention — Police informed the defendant of his right to counsel and facilitated access — Whether the defendant’s section 10(a) and 10(b) Charter rights were breached — No breach found — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 10(a), 10(b)<br />Criminal procedure — Exclusion of evidence — Section 24(2) of the Charter — Breath samples — Seriousness of Charter-infringing conduct — Impact on Charter-protected interests — Public interest in adjudication on the merits — Whether exclusion of evidence would bring the administration of justice into disrepute — Evidence admitted — R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32 applied
• 2025-04-15 J.A. v. M.S.A., 2025 ONCJ 207 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Grandparent contact — Deference to parental decisions — Maternal grandparents sought extensive contact with the child — Parents proposed limited contact — Should the court defer to the parents’ decision regarding contact? — Deference forfeited when decisions are arbitrary or imperil the grandparent-grandchild relationship — Giansante test applied — Best interests of the child paramount<br />Family — Best interests of the child — Contact order — Maternal grandparents’ role in child’s upbringing — Balancing relationships with parents, maternal grandparents, and paternal grandparents — Child’s need for stability, community, and leisure time — Court ordered one weekend every three weeks, extended holiday time, and summer weeks — Framework for determining best interests under the Children’s Law Reform Act<br />Family — Emergency contacts and relocation — Maternal grandparents added as emergency contacts for the child — Parents required to follow statutory notice provisions for relocation — Should restrictions on relocation or a right of first refusal be imposed? — Court declined to impose right of first refusal due to logistical challenges — Sections 39.1, 39.2, and 39.3 of the Children’s Law Reform Act applied<br />Family — Legal framework — Grandparent contact — Children’s Law Reform Act, ss. 21(3), 24(1), 24(2), 24(3), 28 — Giansante test for deference to parental decisions — Two-part test from B.F. v. A.N. — Best interests analysis includes relationships, stability, and cultural considerations — Court emphasized minimizing conflict and ensuring enforceable contact orders
• 2025-04-15 R. v. Tchintcharashvili, 2025 ONCJ 204 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Armed robbery — Dangerous driving — Disguise with intent — Pointing a firearm — Offender participated in multiple armed robberies involving firearms and vulnerable victims — Guilty plea, first-time offender, and addiction to fentanyl considered mitigating factors — Aggravating factors included planning, use of firearms, and threats to victims — What is the appropriate sentence for these offences? — Principles of proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation applied under Criminal Code, s. 718<br />Criminal procedure — Pre-sentence custody — Restrictive bail conditions — Offender served 140 days in pre-sentence custody and was subject to restrictive bail with GPS monitoring — Should pre-sentence custody and bail conditions reduce the overall sentence? — Credit for pre-sentence custody granted under Summers and Downes principles<br />Transportation — Dangerous driving — Sentencing principles — Offender fled the scene of two collisions while under the influence of fentanyl — Risk to public safety emphasized — Should a suspended sentence or jail time be imposed for dangerous driving? — General deterrence and denunciation prioritized under Criminal Code, s. 718
• 2025-04-15 R. v. S.T., 2025 ONCJ 205 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sexual assault — Breach of court orders — Sentencing — Offender convicted of sexually assaulting spouse and breaching release conditions — Aggravating factors included breach of trust, psychological harm to victim, and persistence of assault — Mitigating factors included lack of prior record, harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, and community support — Sentence imposed: 8 months jail for sexual assault, 15 days for breaches — Principles of proportionality, denunciation, and deterrence applied — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.2<br />Criminal procedure — Sentencing principles — Probation terms — Offender sentenced to 18 months probation following incarceration — Probation terms included no contact with victim, counselling for anger management and sexual offending, and weapons prohibition — DNA order issued — Compliance monitoring required — Criminal Code, ss. 109, 743.21<br />Statutory interpretation — SOIRA order — Imposition of sex offender registration — Court required to impose SOIRA order unless offender demonstrates lack of connection to public safety or grossly disproportionate impact — Offender failed to meet burden of proof — SOIRA order imposed for 10 years — Criminal Code, s. 490.012
• 2025-04-15 R. v. Coulter, 2025 ONCJ 206 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Possession of fentanyl for the purpose of trafficking — Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 5(2) — Defendant arrested with 20.8g of fentanyl, cocaine, and Dilaudid — Whether possession was for personal use or trafficking — Crown relied on circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, and inconsistencies in defendant’s evidence — Guilt established beyond a reasonable doubt — Principles from R. v. Villaroman applied to circumstantial evidence<br />Evidence — Expert evidence — Reliability of expert report and testimony — Police expert testified on drug quantities, trafficking indicators, and usage rates — Report contained errors and redactions — Expert’s testimony supplemented deficiencies in the report — Whether expert evidence was sufficient to support trafficking inference — Court found expert evidence reliable despite noted deficiencies<br />Evidence — Defendant’s testimony — Credibility and inconsistencies — Defendant claimed drugs were for personal use — Testified to high fentanyl consumption and financial difficulties — Inconsistent evidence on drug use, financial status, and living arrangements — Court rejected defendant’s evidence as unreliable — Principles from R. v. W.D. applied<br />Evidence — Circumstantial evidence — Trafficking inference — Defendant possessed large quantities of fentanyl, cocaine, and Dilaudid — Drugs packaged in amounts consistent with trafficking — Defendant carried brass knuckles, a weapon associated with drug trade — Court found trafficking the only reasonable inference — Principles from R. v. Villaroman applied