Legal Feeds
Canadian Lawyer
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.



Sufficient evidence of fugitive’s conduct to support inference that he was person who created false documents

Appeal by fugitive from order that committed him for extradition to Hungary to be prosecuted for fraud over $5,000. Fugitive was alleged to have engaged in ongoing fraudulent scheme in which he defrauded banks of $49,000 by submitting false car leasing agreements with information he had access to as managing director of car dealership. He was also alleged to have defrauded banks and individuals of $35,800 by entering into loan agreements that he did not intend to pay and by using collateral that he did not own. Extradition judge found evidence was sufficient to justify fugitive’s committal for fraud over $5,000. Appeal dismissed. Available evidence certified in Records of the Case was sufficient to justify fugitive’s committal. Contrary to fugitive’s submission there was sufficient evidence of fugitive’s conduct to support inference that he was person who created false documents or who entered into fraudulent transactions with injured parties. Judge, therefore, did not err in ordering fugitive’s committal.

Republic of Hungary v. Toth (
July 26, 2011, Ont. C.A., Laskin, Rosenberg and Karakatsanis JJ.A., File No. C52445; C53192) Decision at 96 W.C.B. (2d) 24 affirmed. 96 W.C.B. (2d) 23 (14 pp.).



Motive relevant by making it more likely accusedcommitted crime

Accused doctor convicted of manslaughter in death of wife. Cause of death multi-drug toxicity caused by legal levels of two anesthetics. Accused testifying he injected wife with acceptable levels of anesthetic for therapeutic purposes. Defence theorizing death caused by deceased administering further doses of anesthetic, consuming alcohol. Crown theorizing death caused by criminal negligence. Crown alternatively theorizing accused committed manslaughter by unlawful act of aggravated assault by intentionally administering harmful amount of anesthetic. Trial judge charging jury on both theories of liability. Crown relying on evidence of declining state of marriage as evidence of motive to commit manslaughter by intentional assault. Appeal from conviction dismissed. Trial judge did not err by admitting evidence of motive even though accused not charged with murder. Though not essential element of criminal responsibility, motive relevant by making it more likely accused committed crime. Motive piece of circumstantial evidence showing accused intentionally injected wife with anesthetic.

R. v. Roncaioli (May 13, 2011, Ont. C.A., Laskin, Armstrong and LaForme JJ.A., File No. C48861) 95 W.C.B. (2d) 583 (23 pp.



Complainant’s explanation for delayed complaint plausible in circumstances

Accused and complainant had been involved in relationship. Complainant testified that when she attempted to leave accused’s house, he pushed her onto couch and pinned her hands. Complainant testified accused choked her to point she felt unable to breathe. Complainant went to police about 10 days after incident after family friend told her abuse would not otherwise stop. Accused denied allegations. Accused found guilty. Complainant testified in straightforward manner without embellishment or animus. Complainant’s explanation for delayed complaint was plausible in circumstances. Complainant was not seriously challenged on material issues of fact. Complainant was credible and reliable. Accused’s suggestion that complainant left his home in anger because of photos on display made little sense. Accused, likely fueled by alcohol, manhandled complainant as she described.

R. v. Narain
(July 5, 2011, Ont. C.J., Feldman J.) 95 W.C.B. (2d) 561 (7 pp.).

Charter Of Rights


Accused’s circumstances and jeopardy never changed from time of arrest to time of interview

Accused charged with three counts of arson and two counts of mischief. Accused applied to exclude evidence based on breach of s. 10(b) Charter rights. Accused was arrested after police searched his computer. Police were aware that accused’s parents were forbidding their interviewing of any of their children without either their presence, or that of counsel retained by them. Accused spoke to counsel following his arrest. Application dismissed. No evidence that counsel was dissatisfied with contact he had with accused. No concern expressed by accused during his interview that he needed more time, was dissatisfied in any way with advice received, or wished to speak to counsel again. While only 18 years and 2 months at time of his arrest, accused was considered adult and his parents were not in position to demand that his lawyer be present during interview. Accused’s circumstances and jeopardy never changed from time of his arrest to time of interview and no subsequent right or access to counsel was mandated. No breach of accused’s rights.

R. v. Gander
(June 6, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Thomas J., File No. CR-10-00002703-00MO) 95 W.C.B. (2d) 495 (15 pp.).



Accused’s evidence non-responsive, self-serving, confusing, discursive and inconsistent

Accused charged with assault, uttering death threats and forcible confinement stemming from incident with his then wife. Allegedly, after an argument, accused punched complainant in the head and when she informed him of her intention to phone police, made remarks to the effect that he would bring her back to Afghanistan where he could deal with her without any legal consequences. Complainant, with assistance of bed sheets, left apartment by climbing down from the balcony. Accused found guilty of assault and uttering death threats, not guilty of forcible confinement. Court found accused’s evidence to be non-responsive, self-serving, confusing, discursive and inconsistent and likewise found testimony from other defence witnesses wholly unbelievable or of little value. Court accepted testimony of the man who drove complainant to police station as a wholly unbiased witness whose testimony was consistent and uncontradicted. Court accepted complainant’s testimony. Case for forcible confinement not made out.

R. v. Wardak (June 9, 2011, Ont. C.J., Wright J., File No. 998-11-04214-00) 95 W.C.B. (2d) 468 (12 pp.).



No rational basis for conclusion that judge’s reasons contained prejudgment of witness’s credibility

Crown applied for judge to recuse himself and for mistrial on basis of reasonable apprehension of bias during trial of two accused for kidnapping and murder. Judge had earlier ruled on two applications wherein defence alleged that Crown had conducted improper interview of witness who had been co-accused. Defence had alleged that disclosure of photographs and interview itself led to witness changing his testimony from his preliminary evidence. Judge ruled that because of conduct by Crown at preparatory interview of witness, trial should continue without jury. Application dismissed. There was no rational basis for conclusion that judge’s reasons contained prejudgment of witness’s credibility or any apprehension of bias against Crown.

R. v. Spence (June 9, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Howden J., File No. 09-225) 95 W.C.B. (2d) 383 (11 pp.).



Judge erred by implying that it was accused’s onus to show device did not work properly

Appeal by accused from her conviction for failing to comply with demand for roadside breath sample. She narrowly avoided hitting a motorcyclist and she came to a stop against highway median. Police officer arrived at scene and smelled alcohol on accused’s breath. She demanded that accused provide breath sample into roadside screening device. Accused made 23 attempts to blow into device. Officer needed to use two devices because after 11 attempts first device displayed low battery message. Trial judge found that accused’s overall conduct clearly demonstrated intention to frustrate taking proper sample. Appeal allowed. New trial ordered. Judge did not properly apply burden of proof for he rejected accused’s evidence but did not properly assess reliability of remaining evidence which was from police officer. He also erred by implying that it was accused’s onus to show that device did not work properly. Rather, it was Crown’s onus to show that device worked properly, especially in this case where accused made unsuccessful attempts to provide breath sample.

R. v. Pinard (Apr. 7, 2011, Ont. S.C.J., Parfett J., File No. 09-2213) 95 W.C.B. (2d) 351 (7 pp.).
<< Start < Prev 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Next > End >>
Page 51 of 52

  • Access to Justice
    Access to Justice The Action Group on Access to Justice (TAG) strives to inform the public on the importance of the people having access to legal resources and…
  • Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights
    Legal Aid lawyers rally for collective bargaining rights Legal Aid Ontario lawyers held three protests in July to push the provincial government to support their attempts to unionize. The lawyers have been in…
  • Jane-Finch community gets employment law help
    Jane-Finch community gets employment law help Osgoode Hall Law School's Community Legal Aid Services Programme recently opened an employment law division for Toronto's Jane-Finch community.Phanath Im, review counsel for the division,…
More Law Times TV...

Law Times poll

In a recent report, Justice Michael Tulloch said there is ‘no reason’ why the director of the province’s Special Investigations Unit needs to be a lawyer. Do you agree with Tulloch?
Yes, there is no reason why the head of the SIU needs to be a lawyer, especially given that this is not a requirement in other places.
No, the role requires a specialized knowledge of criminal investigations, and the professional expertise a lawyer brings.