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

• 2025-03-21 R. v. Martin, 2025 ONCJ 160 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Possession for the purpose of trafficking — Controlled Drugs and Substances Act — Accused charged with possession of methamphetamine and fentanyl for trafficking purposes — Whether the accused had knowledge and control of the drugs and firearms in the vehicle — Circumstantial evidence and inferences of guilt — Standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 5(2)<br />Criminal procedure — Circumstantial evidence — Sufficiency of evidence — Accused denied knowledge of drugs and firearms in the vehicle — Defence argued drugs belonged to co-accused — Whether circumstantial evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — Application of R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33<br />Evidence — Knowledge and control — Visibility of drugs and firearms — Accused’s use of latex gloves — Value and quantity of drugs as evidence of knowledge — Whether the accused’s denials were credible — Inferences drawn from the accused’s statements and conduct — Governing principles for assessing circumstantial evidence
• 2025-03-20 R. v. Idoko, 2025 ONCJ 159 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Sexual assault — Consent — Penile penetration — Complainant alleged non-consensual sexual intercourse — Accused denied penetration, claimed complainant consented to other sexual activity — Did the accused commit sexual assault by engaging in non-consensual sexual intercourse? — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 271 — Crown must prove intentional sexual touching without consent and knowledge of non-consent beyond a reasonable doubt<br />Evidence — Credibility and reliability — Complainant’s testimony — Inconsistencies in complainant’s account — Complainant’s evidence clear and persuasive on core issue of non-consensual penetration — Did the complainant’s evidence establish the elements of sexual assault? — Test for assessing credibility and reliability of witnesses — R. v. J.A., 2011 SCC 28; R. v. Ewanchuk, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 330<br />Evidence — Accused’s testimony — Reasonable doubt — Accused claimed no penile penetration occurred and that comments admitting penetration were jokes — Trial judge rejected accused’s evidence as contrived and inconsistent — Did the accused’s testimony raise a reasonable doubt? — Burden of proof on Crown to disprove reasonable doubt — R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC)<br />Criminal procedure — Credibility assessment — Rule in R. v. W.(D.) — Trial judge must assess whether accused’s evidence raises a reasonable doubt or whether Crown’s evidence proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — Proper application of principles of credibility and reliability — R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC); R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30
• 2025-03-20 R. v. Gilbert, 2025 ONCJ 158 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Criminal infractions — Breach of prohibition order — Sentencing — Offender convicted of breaching section 161 prohibition order by associating with a child without required permissions — Does the offender’s conduct warrant a custodial sentence of 18 months? — Sentencing principles of deterrence, denunciation, and proportionality applied — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 161<br />Child protection — Prohibition orders — Breach of conditions — Offender developed a close relationship with a child despite prohibition order — Does the breach undermine the protective purpose of section 161 orders? — Prohibition orders aim to shield children from sexual violence and exploitation — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 161<br />Criminal procedure — Kienapple principle — Staying multiple counts — Offender convicted of multiple breaches of prohibition and probation orders — Should the Kienapple principle apply to stay overlapping counts? — Overlapping counts stayed to avoid double punishment for the same conduct — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46<br />Indigenous peoples — Sentencing — Gladue principles — Offender claimed tenuous Indigenous identity — Should Gladue principles mitigate the offender’s sentence? — Lack of evidence of systemic or background factors precluded application of Gladue principles — R. v. Ipeelee, 2012 SCC 13<br />Criminal procedure — Consecutive sentences — Breach of probation and prohibition orders — Should consecutive sentences be imposed for distinct breaches of court orders? — Consecutive sentences justified to reflect distinct invasions of societal interests — Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46
• 2025-03-19 R. v. M.R., 2025 ONCJ 155 (CanLII)
  Key Words:
• 2025-03-18 R. v. Weston, 2025 ONCJ 151 (CanLII)
  Key Words: Statutory interpretation — Cannabis Act — Meaning of “export” — Principles of statutory interpretation — Whether “export” under the Cannabis Act requires evidence of commercial value — Does “export” mean sending cannabis from Canada to another country without requiring a commercial purpose? — Governing rule: Ordinary meaning of “export” includes any movement of cannabis out of Canada’s jurisdiction, without requiring evidence of value<br />Evidence — Cannabis Act — Possession for the purpose of exporting — Proof required — Whether possession must be linked to an intention to cause cannabis to leave Canada — Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that possession was for the purpose of exporting — Governing rule: Evidence must show intent to move cannabis out of Canada, regardless of other purposes for possession