Carla Mariuz

The applicants, charged with violating the Quarantine Act, brought numerous pre-trial motions challenging the validity of the charging documents, the legislation itself, the authority of the screening officer, alleged breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (including sections 7, 8, 9, 10, 11(a), 11(e), 11(i), and 15), and unreasonable delay under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The court dismissed all motions, finding the charging documents valid, the Quarantine Act enforceable, the screening officer's authority established, no Charter breaches proven due to lack of evidence or prior judicial precedent, and no unreasonable delay after accounting for defence-caused delay and the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The matter was remitted for trial.

The appellant appealed his conviction on two charges: operating a tow truck without a license contrary to City of Mississauga By-Law 521-04, and obstructing a mobile licensing inspector contrary to s. 426 of the Municipal Act.

The appeal was heard on the grounds that the appellant had not received the summons and that the trial justice's conduct created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The respondent conceded the appeal on the service issue.

The court found that the trial justice's comments throughout the proceedings—including sarcastic remarks, derisive characterizations, and statements indicating a predetermined outcome—created a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The defendant brought a motion for disclosure of materials in a speeding offense case.

The defendant sought: (1) notes of other tickets issued by the officer that day; (2) discipline and human resource records of the officer; (3) the complete user manual for the laser speed measuring device; (4) calibration and maintenance history of the device; and (5) the officer's training record.

The court denied most requests as speculative fishing expeditions lacking sufficient factual foundation or likely relevance.

The prosecution agreed to provide the officer's qualification date and confirmation of qualification on the date of the offense.

The matter was remanded for trial.

The appellant was charged with unsafe lane change under the Highway Traffic Act.

On the trial date, a paralegal acting as his agent appeared and requested an adjournment based on incomplete disclosure.

The adjournment was denied.

The paralegal then withdrew from the proceedings, stating he was instructed to "walk away." The Justice of the Peace entered a conviction without a hearing pursuant to section 9.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: that the adjournment should have been granted, and that section 9.1(2) did not apply.

The court found the refusal of the adjournment was within the Justice of the Peace's discretion but held that section 9.1(2) could not be applied because the appellant had appeared through an agent and therefore had not "failed to appear" at trial.

The appellant was convicted of driving a motor vehicle while holding a handheld wireless communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

A police officer testified that while driving on the highway, he observed the defendant holding a cell phone in his left hand and appearing to manipulate the buttons.

The officer made this observation for a few moments before stopping the vehicle.

The appellant appealed on two grounds: misapprehension of the evidence and unreasonableness of the verdict.

The Justice of the Peace had stated the observation was made for "a few minutes" rather than "a few moments." The appeal was dismissed.

The City of Mississauga prosecuted Peel Standard Condominium Corporation #833 for failing to comply with Orders to Comply issued on February 25, 2010, under the Building Code Act, 1992.

The Orders required the condominium corporation to remedy unauthorized alterations made by the builder-developer to exterior decks and front entrance canopies that deviated from approved construction plans.

The defendant condominium corporation was charged with two counts of "building not in accordance with approved plans" and two counts of "failing to comply with an order." The prosecution dismissed the first two charges as statute-barred.

The court found that while the defendant committed the actus reus of failing to comply with the Orders, it had taken all reasonable steps in the circumstances to comply by pursuing a warranty claim with Tarion (the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan administrator) rather than immediately undertaking costly remediation.

The court acquitted the defendant on all charges, finding that the defendant's pursuit of the warranty claim was a valid and reasonable route given the exceptional circumstances, the substantial costs involved, the lack of immediate safety concerns, and the defendant's lack of involvement in the unauthorized alterations.

The defendant, a used car dealer, was charged with failing to comply with a Property Standards Order requiring removal of unlicensed vehicles from his residential property.

The defendant challenged the by-law on multiple grounds, including spelling of the word "license," the distinction between licensing and plating in Ontario, and the requirement to comply absent evidence of actual removal on the compliance date.

The court rejected all defenses, finding the by-law enforceable as written, that common usage supports the interpretation of "license" as referring to vehicle plates, and that the compliance date is merely a temporal marker rather than a single point of inspection.

The defendant's credibility regarding claimed compliance was found suspect given his stated opposition to the by-law and failure to appeal the order.

The court convicted the defendant, finding he failed to establish due diligence.