A. Cahill

The Ontario Court of Justice found 10695025 Canada Ltd. guilty of 15 counts of Fire Code violations occurring on October 4, 2023, at a leased industrial property in Mississauga where cannabis was cultivated.

The defendant corporation did not appear at trial, which proceeded in absentia under s. 54(1) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court accepted the testimony of a fire inspector and photographic evidence detailing multiple violations including lack of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, obstructed exits, improper fire separations, and inadequate fire extinguisher maintenance.

The court also addressed the issue of corporate liability post-dissolution, interpreting s. 226(2) of the Canada Business Corporations Act to hold a dissolved corporation liable for offences committed up to two years after dissolution if it continued business activities.

The 16th count was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding NFPA 25 compliance.

The defendant brought a preliminary motion objecting to the officer's reliance on his notes to refresh his memory, arguing that the notes were created from a template in advance of the incident and could have been altered.

The court considered whether the officer met the three conditions precedent for using notes to refresh memory: (1) notes made at or shortly after the incident; (2) no changes, additions, alterations, or deletions since creation; and (3) independent recollection with need to refresh memory.

The court found that the officer satisfied all three conditions and permitted the use of the notes as an aid to refresh memory, while clarifying that the notes themselves are not evidence and that contemporaneity now goes to weight rather than admissibility.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act for an incident on October 2, 2014, at a crosswalk on Howard Park Avenue in Toronto.

The Crown alleged the defendant struck a pedestrian's dog while accelerating away from a stopped position at a crosswalk.

The defendant testified he had stopped for the pedestrian crossing and honked to alert the pedestrian that her unleashed dog had entered the roadway.

The court found the complainant's evidence lacked credibility and contained internal inconsistencies regarding the nature and extent of contact.

The defendant was acquitted as the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the highway.

The defendant brought a preliminary motion to quash the Certificate of Offence for speeding under the Highway Traffic Act on the grounds that the inclusion of 'R79' in the code box on the certificate was prejudicial and violated the presumption of innocence.

The court found that the code notation did not deface the charging document, did not prejudice the defendant's ability to make full answer and defence, and did not violate the presumption of innocence.

The application to quash was denied.