mt_ignore
Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
jobsinlaw.ca
Supreme Court | Federal Court | Federal Appeal | Ontario Civil | Ontario Criminal | Tax Court

Ontario Criminal

Case Law is a sample selection from the weekly summaries of notable unreported civil and criminal court decisions published in Law Times newspaper.

Single or multiple copies of the full text of any case digested in the newspaper or sampled here can be obtained by calling Case Law's photocopy department at:
(905) 841-6472 in Toronto,
(800) 263-3269 in Ontario and Quebec, or
(800) 263-2037 in other provinces.
To request a case online

For more Case Law every week, subscribe to Law Times.

Criminal Law

Narcotic and drug control

Evidence

Reasonable and probable grounds for arrest were objectively established

Following 911 call, dispatch radioed officers with information of person with gun. Dispatch alerted officers that suspects had firearm and were in silver four-door Dodge sedan. Two occupants of vehicle were light-skinned black males who appeared to be under 24 years of age. Officer stopped Dodge sedan at issue and initiated high risk takedown. Officer handcuffed accused and told him that he was under arrest for possession of firearm. Accused was found to have marijuana and cocaine on his person. Accused brought unsuccessful application to have cocaine excluded from evidence. Accused was convicted of possession of cocaine for purpose of trafficking. Accused appealed decision to include evidence of cocaine. Appeal dismissed. When officers first encountered suspect vehicle, it was being driven at high rate of speed. Everything that officers saw was consistent with information that 911 callers had given. There was no reason to discount information. Officers had every reason to believe that occupants of suspect vehicle were in possession of handguns. Reasonable and probable grounds for arrest were objectively established.
R. v. Carelse-Brown (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 19894, 2016 ONCA 943, K. Feldman J.A., E.E. Gillese J.A., and M.L. Benotto J.A. (Ont. C.A.).

Criminal Law

Post-trial procedure

Detention and release after trial

Continued detention was warranted

Accused, now 63 years old, was found not guilty by reason of insanity of using weapon while committing sexual assault and had been detained under jurisdiction of Ontario Review Board for over 30 years. At his last annual hearing, accused was unrepresented and his request for adjournment to retain counsel was denied because hearing date was marked peremptory. Hospital sought accused’s continued detention but asked Board to transfer him to another hospital because he was unmanageable. Board found that accused’s continued detention was warranted because he remained significant threat to safety of public, but refused to order his transfer to another hospital. Appeal by accused dismissed. Board erred in its approach to accused’s request for adjournment and in not specifically addressing his complaint about sleep deprivation. Peremptory designation did not exhaust Board’s discretion or preclude it from granting adjournment if one was required in interests of justice. Refusing adjournment solely because hearing date had been designated peremptory amounted to error in principle. However, in practical terms, issue was moot. On central issue of whether accused should be transferred to another hospital, Board concluded that evidence of doctors who testified as to ongoing abuse and trauma that accused had allegedly inflicted on numerous hospital staff members was outweighed by dramatic improvements in accused’s condition while at hospital. Accused insisted on being awakened for hourly checks on his condition during night, leading to ongoing sleep deprivation. Board did not address issue in its reasons. Board was obliged to explore what hospital had done to address accused’s sleep problem in more detail than it did at last hearing. Board was urged to explore issue of accused’s sleep deprivation and, if not already done, was directed to obtain independent opinion.
Conway, Re (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 19061, 2016 ONCA 918, John Laskin J.A., E.E. Gillese J.A., and David Watt J.A. (Ont. C.A.); affirmed (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 3966, N.D. McRae Alt. Chair, J. Burnside Member, G. Nexhipi Member, T. Verny Member, and J. Cyr Member (Ont. Review Bd.).

Criminal Law

Narcotic and drug control

Offences

New trial was ordered

Evidence. Accused drove transport truck loaded with raspberries from California to Ontario. When Canada Border Services Agency officers opened trailer of accused’s truck at border crossing, they saw two suitcases on top of skids of raspberries, which contained 39 kilograms of cocaine. Accused was charged with importing and possessing cocaine for purpose of trafficking. Accused denied seeing luggage on load in truck. Crown led evidence that accused had considerably under-reported length of his stop in California, and evidence suggesting it was unlikely that luggage was loaded on truck at same time as berries. Accused was acquitted and Crown appealed. Appeal allowed. Trial judge erred by making findings of fact based on speculation, and relied on those findings to conclude that accused was not “only” person who would be in position to retrieve drugs. Significance of that conclusion to trial judge’s ultimate determination was readily apparent when considered in context of defence that accused was “blind courier”. Trial judge also erred by failing to consider all of evidence in relation to ultimate issue of guilt by using piecemeal approach, effectively requiring Crown to prove each individual piece of evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to consider evidence as whole is error of law warranting appellate intervention. Trial judge’s legal errors clearly affected his verdict of acquittal. New trial ordered.
R. v. Knezevic (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 18886, 2016 ONCA 914, John Laskin J.A., E.E. Gillese J.A., and David Watt J.A. (Ont. C.A.).

Criminal Law

Offences

Criminal negligence causing death


Appeal of conviction for criminal negligence causing death was dismissed

Truck driven by accused drifted into oncoming traffic and collided head-on with mini-van, killing its driver. Accused was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death. Conviction for dangerous driving causing death was stayed in accordance with R. v. Kienapple. Accused appealed conviction for criminal negligence causing death. Appeal dismissed. Accused submitted that trial judge failed to adequately explain to jury elements of criminal negligence causing death and how that offence differs from offence of dangerous driving causing death, and to adequately relate evidence to offence. Trial judge properly instructed jury on elements of criminal negligence causing death and explained difference between that offence and lesser offence of dangerous driving causing death. In response to jury question seeking clarification about difference between dangerous driving causing death and criminal negligence causing death, trial judge repeated relevant portions of his charge and added that for criminal negligence causing death, conduct must be more marked than for dangerous driving in both physical and mental elements of offence. Trial judge reviewed elements of offence of dangerous driving and summarized relevant evidence.
R. v. Bhangal (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 17933, 2016 ONCA 857, Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O., Doherty J.A., and K. van Rensburg J.A. (Ont. C.A.).

Criminal Law

Offences

Sexual assault

There was no basis to interfere with sentence

Accused and complainant met at social gathering at mutual friend’s home. Complainant fell asleep on couch. Trial judge found accused engaged in sexual intercourse with complainant while she slept, without her consent, knowing that she was not consenting. Accused was convicted of sexual assault and sentenced to incarceration of 30 months. Accused appealed conviction and sought leave to appeal sentence. Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal sentence granted. Appeal of sentence dismissed. Trial judge’s credibility analysis was reasonable and supported by evidence, she properly instructed herself, and she did not improperly shift burden of proof onto accused. Forensic evidence was neutral. There was no basis to interfere with sentence, which was within range.
R. v. Sanderson (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 18094, 2016 ONCA 866, Alexandra Hoy A.C.J.O., Doherty J.A., and K. van Rensburg J.A. (Ont. C.A.).

Criminal Law

Narcotic and drug control

Offences

Sentence at upper end of range was not warranted

Accused delivered one-kilogram brick of cocaine contained in grocery bag to man. Accused was 44-year old first offender who was gainfully employed at time of his arrest. Jury convicted accused of trafficking. Trial judge sentenced accused to eight years’ imprisonment less credit of 24 days for time spent in pre-disposition custody. Accused appealed sentence. Appeal allowed. Sentence was reduced to term of five years. Trial judge erred in making findings of fact that prior transactions between accused and man who supplied him with brick involved cocaine or methamphetamine in absence of evidence to support such conclusion and using that finding as aggravating factor on sentence. Trial judge erred in failing to give effect to principle of parity in light of sentences imposed on two others involved. Trial judge erred in imposing sentence of imprisonment at upper end of range of sentence without taking into account that accused was first offender. Evidence did not warrant sentence at upper end of range of sentence applicable to accused’s offence for first offender. Trial judge did not have benefit of Gladue report which was received as fresh evidence on hearing of appeal. Report and errors warranted reduction in sentence.
R. v. McIntyre (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 17506, 2016 ONCA 843, J.C. MacPherson J.A., E.A. Cronk J.A., and David Watt J.A. (Ont. C.A.).


Criminal Law

General principles

Incomplete crimes

Appeal from conviction for counselling murder was dismissed

Murder. Accused was convicted of two counts of sexual assault causing bodily harm and single counts of breach of recognizance and counselling murder, offence that was not committed. Accused allegedly solicited fellow jail inmate to kill complainant in sexual assault and breach of recognizance counts so that she could not testify against him, but parties did not conclude agreement about how killing was to be carried out at that time. Putative killer, career criminal, testified that accused’s plan was for complainant to die of apparent accidental drug overdose while accused was in jail. Accused appealed conviction for counselling murder. Appeal dismissed. Trial judge did not err in finding that accused “proactively” engaged in conversation about killing complainant in jail yard, or in erroneously relying on evidence of later discussions to confirm evidence of unsavoury prosecution witness. Counselling commission of offence that is not committed is inchoate or preliminary crime complete when solicitation occurs, even if person incited rejects solicitation or merely feigns assent. Trial judge’s findings respecting unrecorded discussion in jail yard established essential elements of counselling offence. Those findings were open to trial judge to make on evidence of principal Crown witness. Trial judge did not misapprehend or err in considering as confirmatory of evidence of putative killer portions of conversations surreptitiously recorded later in jail. He found, as he was entitled to do, that offence was complete when accused and putative killer met, at accused’s invitation, in jail yard.
R. v. Devitt (2016), 2016 CarswellOnt 18092, 2016 ONCA 871, J.C. MacPherson J.A., R.A. Blair J.A., and David Watt J.A. (Ont. C.A.).


<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>
Page 5 of 53

More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

An estate trustee who took an ‘egregious' position in litigation has been ordered to personally pay more than $140,000 in costs. Will this ruling serve as an appropriate caution to executors on how they conduct themselves in litigation?
Yes, this will remind trustees of the potential exposure of significant awards being made against them personally.
No, it’s unlikely this ruling will dissuade executors from engaging in unreasonable conduct during litigation.