D. Rosso

The defendant in a Building Code Act prosecution brought a second disclosure motion seeking field notes, memoranda, and investigators' files from the City of Toronto.

The first disclosure motion had been denied as a fishing expedition.

However, the defendant subsequently obtained documents through a Freedom of Information request that supported potential defences of officially induced error, statute of limitations, and legal non-conforming use.

The court found the defendant satisfied the onus to establish relevance and granted the second disclosure motion, noting the City did not respond to oppose it.

The accused was charged with uttering threats to cause bodily harm to her son and threatening to burn her daughter-in-law's business property.

Both threats arose from a single voicemail message left on August 25, 2023, following the accused's exclusion from her other son's funeral.

The accused admitted leaving the voicemail.

The defence argued the language was figurative, referring to civil litigation rather than literal threats.

The court found that a reasonable person would perceive the voicemail as containing threats of physical harm and property damage, and that the accused subjectively intended to intimidate and be taken seriously.

The accused was found guilty on both counts.

The defendant brought a Charter application alleging a breach of section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (right to be tried within a reasonable time) in a Provincial Offences Act matter concerning alleged violations of the Building Code Act.

The defendant was charged on March 24, 2023, with contravening section 36(1) of the Building Code Act and failing to comply with an inspector's order.

The court conducted a detailed analysis of delay attributable to the defendant, the Crown, and the court itself, calculating net delay of 8.87 months as of the hearing date.

The court found that the defendant did not take meaningful steps to expedite proceedings, having changed legal representation three times, failed to properly serve and file amended Charter application materials, and did not raise disclosure issues until the eleventh hour.

The court dismissed the Charter application, finding no breach of section 11(b) rights, as the net delay remained well below the 18-month presumptive ceiling established in R v. Jordan for provincial court matters.