Decisions

Subscribe to the RSS Feed for Ontario Court of Justice Decisions

• New Decisions : Ontario Court of Justice

Ontario Court of Justice Recent Decisions

• 2025-04-09 Jansen v. DiCecco, 2025 ONCJ 189 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Family — Child support — Retroactive adjustment — Payor’s misrepresentation of income — Material change in circumstances — Should child support be retroactively adjusted to reflect the payor’s actual income since 2003? — Framework from Colucci v. Colucci applied — Retroactive child support holds payors accountable for unfulfilled obligations<br />Family — Retroactive child support — Effective and formal notice — Presumptive start date — Blameworthy conduct — Should the court depart from the presumptive start date for retroactive child support? — Effective notice given in 2009; formal notice in 2017 — Blameworthy conduct justifies retroactivity to 2003<br />Evidence — Imputation of income — Self-employed payor — Hidden income and assets — Adverse inference — What income should be imputed to the payor for calculating retroactive child support? — Income imputed based on increases in net worth and unreported income — Section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines applied<br />Family — Section 7 expenses — Additional contributions — Guidelines approach — Should the payor be required to pay additional amounts for section 7 expenses? — Insufficient evidence provided for additional section 7 expenses — Guidelines table amounts deemed sufficient<br />Family — Child support arrears — Calculation and payment — Significant arrears due to retroactive adjustment — How should arrears of retroactive child support be calculated and paid? — Arrears calculated based on imputed income and guidelines table amounts — Payment ordered forthwith
• 2025-04-09 R. v. K.B., 2025 ONCJ 191 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sentencing — Domestic violence — Offender pleaded guilty to multiple counts of assault, assault with choking, threats, and theft — Offender had a significant prior record for domestic violence — What is the appropriate sentence considering the gravity of the offences and mitigating factors? — Sentence of 30 months imposed, reduced by pre-sentence custody credit — Criminal Code, ss. 718, 718.1, 718.2<br />Criminal procedure — Totality principle — Pre-sentence custody — Offender experienced harsh pre-sentence custody conditions, including triple bunking and lockdowns — Should the principle of totality and pre-sentence custody conditions influence the sentence? — Totality principle applied to ensure proportionality — Pre-sentence custody credited at 1.5:1 ratio — Criminal Code, s. 718.2(c)<br />Criminal procedure — Probation and ancillary orders — Offender sentenced to probation for three years following incarceration — Terms included no contact with the victim without prior consent, counselling for anger management and domestic violence, and weapons prohibition — What probationary terms and ancillary orders are appropriate to address rehabilitation and public safety? — Probation terms tailored to offender’s rehabilitation and risk management — Criminal Code, ss. 109, 743.21<br />Statutory interpretation — Guilty plea and remorse — Offender pleaded guilty and expressed remorse for actions — Does a guilty plea and expressions of remorse mitigate the sentence? — Guilty plea considered a mitigating factor, but remorse given limited weight due to lack of full appreciation of harm caused — Criminal Code, s. 718.2(a)
• 2025-04-09 R. v. Taboada, 2025 ONCJ 192 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal procedure — Arrest — Reasonable and probable grounds — Impaired driving — Officer’s subjective and objective grounds for arrest — Whether the arresting officer had reasonable and probable grounds to arrest the accused for impaired driving and demand breath samples — Standard for reasonable and probable grounds in impaired driving cases — Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 9 — Criminal Code, s. 320.27<br />Constitution — Charter of Rights — Unreasonable search and seizure — Arbitrary detention — Section 24(2) exclusion of evidence — Whether the accused’s Charter rights under sections 8 and 9 were violated by the arrest and breath demand — If so, whether the breath test results should be excluded under section 24(2) — Balancing the Grant factors — Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ss. 8, 9, 24(2)<br />Criminal infractions — Impaired driving — Over 80 — Evidence — Proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Whether the Crown proved the accused’s guilt for impaired driving and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration over the legal limit — Testimony of civilian witnesses and breath test results — Criminal Code, ss. 320.14(1)(a), 320.14(1)(b)
• 2025-04-09 Toronto (City) v. Becerra, 2025 ONCJ 193 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Municipalities — Provincial Offences Act appeals — Procedural directions — Jurisdiction of Ontario Court of Justice — City of Toronto motion for directions under s. 12 of O. Reg. 722/94 — Can the court provide procedural orders for appeals involving Highway Traffic Act offences? — Court’s jurisdiction limited to procedural matters under the Provincial Offences Act<br />Civil procedure — Appeals — Procedural delays — Filing requirements — Transcripts and supporting materials not filed in Provincial Offences Act appeals — Can the court address delays in advancing appeals? — Procedural safeguards to ensure timely adjudication of appeals under s. 135 of the Provincial Offences Act<br />Professional responsibility — Paralegals — Unauthorized practice of law — Appeals filed by unlicensed individuals — Ethical obligations of licensed paralegals — Allegations of misconduct involving unlicensed representatives — Should the Law Society of Ontario investigate potential misconduct? — Regulatory oversight under the Law Society Act<br />Evidence — Ineffective assistance of counsel — Allegations in Provincial Offences Act appeals — Guilty pleas entered without proper instructions — Procedural safeguards for addressing claims of ineffective representation — Application of R. v. Elliott and City of Toronto v. Hill — Framework for addressing ineffective assistance in appeal proceedings<br />Civil procedure — Appeals — Procedural fairness — Role of the Ministry of Transportation in removing convictions from driving abstracts pending appeal — Impact of delays on driving records and insurance — Should procedural reforms ensure appeals are advanced promptly? — Recommendations for scheduling hearing dates upon filing appeals
• 2025-04-09 R. v. Herrington, 2025 ONCJ 195 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Assault — Intimate partner violence — Accused charged with assaulting intimate partner contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code — Complainant alleged physical aggression, including lunging, grabbing, and intimidation — Accused denied physical contact or intent to harm — Did the Crown prove the elements of assault beyond a reasonable doubt? — Presumption of innocence and burden of proof applied — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 266<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — Assessment of witness testimony — Complainant testified to a clear and consistent narrative of events, corroborated by independent witness — Accused’s testimony found implausible and inconsistent — How should the court assess credibility and reliability in conflicting testimony? — Framework from R. v. W.(D.) applied to evaluate evidence and reasonable doubt<br />Criminal procedure — Witness testimony — Independent witness corroboration — Neighbour testified to hearing argument and observing complainant’s distress — Testimony supported complainant’s account of accused’s aggressive behaviour — Did the independent witness’s evidence bolster the Crown’s case? — Witness credibility assessed based on specificity and forthrightness<br />Evidence — De minimis defence — Intimate partner violence — Defence argued physical contact was trivial and posed no risk — Court rejected de minimis defence, emphasizing societal values against intimate partner violence — Does the de minimis principle apply in cases of intimate partner violence? — Principles from R. v. Murdock and R. v. Carson applied