3 total
Most curbsiding and misrepresentation charges were proven against the family sellers.
In a regulatory prosecution arising from the sale and attempted sale of 11 damaged or rebuilt vehicles, the court held that the defendants acted as unregistered motor vehicle dealers on most of the impugned transactions and, in several instances, engaged in unfair practices by false, misleading, or deceptive representations to consumers.
Applying the strict liability framework, the court found that the prosecution proved the actus reus of 17 of 40 counts and that the defendants failed to establish the s. 5 personal use exemption for 10 of the 11 vehicles.
The court relied on a pattern of short ownership periods, minimal odometer changes, lack of licence plates, repeated purchases from a salvage-oriented seller, simultaneous advertisements, and misleading sale circumstances as indicia of curbsiding.
Only one vehicle fell within the personal use exemption because it had a registered plate, substantial mileage during ownership, and a lengthy ownership period.
Due diligence and mistake of fact defences were rejected.
Identification proven through Ministry records and officer evidence despite false name provided.
The accused was charged with driving while under suspension following a single‑vehicle collision on Highway 400.
At the scene, the driver provided a false name and claimed his licence was at home.
Police later discovered a work-related document on the driver identifying him differently and used it to locate Ministry of Transportation records confirming the accused’s licence was suspended at the time of the offence.
The defence argued the Crown failed to prove identity and that the identification evidence was inadmissible hearsay.
The court rejected the argument, finding the officer’s testimony, Ministry records, and surrounding circumstances provided reliable and admissible identification evidence.
The charge was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Appeal allowed; trial judge erred in finding hotel liable for slip and fall on exterior mat.
The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding it liable under the Occupiers' Liability Act for injuries the respondent sustained after tripping on an exterior mat at a hotel.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by imposing a higher standard of care than the law requires and by concluding the mat was a hazard without sufficient evidentiary basis.
The action was dismissed.
