G. Hayes Murphy

The defendant was convicted on 56 counts of unlawfully removing, injuring, or destroying heritage trees without a permit contrary to the Town of Ancaster Bylaw 2000-118.

The defendant removed 56 heritage trees from the property at 558 Golf Links Road in Hamilton over a period of several days in July and August 2014.

The court imposed a sentence of $6,000 per count for a total fine of $336,000 and a two-year probation order with standard statutory terms and conditions.

The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the conviction should be stayed and that the Keinapple rule against multiple convictions should apply to reduce the sentence to a maximum of $10,000.

The defendant was charged with fifty-six counts of unlawfully removing, injuring, or destroying Heritage trees without a permit under the Town of Ancaster By-Law No. 2000-118.

The charges arose from tree cuttings on the Golf Links property in Hamilton between July 20 and August 10, 2014.

The defendant brought a motion for a directed verdict and a Charter delay challenge, both of which were denied.

The court found that the prosecution established a prima facie case and that the matter proceeded well within the eighteen-month threshold established by R. v. Jordan for Provincial Offences Act matters.

Following a trial on the merits, the court found the defendant guilty on all fifty-six counts.

The court rejected the defendant's defenses of mistake of fact, due diligence, and officially induced error, finding that the defendant failed to take reasonable steps to determine whether a permit was required before cutting the trees.

The applicants sought a declaration of adverse possession over a one-acre parcel of land, which was part of a larger 40-acre parcel they owned.

They claimed actual, continuous, open, visible, notorious, and exclusive possession since 1968, including fencing the land and paying taxes.

The respondent, who inherited an unregistered interest in the one-acre parcel, had not asserted possession or paid taxes.

The court granted the application, declaring the applicants owners in fee simple and ordering the Land Registrar to amend records, finding that the applicants met the criteria for possessory title.