G. Tennant

The defendant brought an oral motion to bar proceedings initiated by the City of Hamilton, arguing they were outside the limitation period set by s.36(8) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The alleged offence involved construction without a permit, observed in 2021, with proceedings commenced in early 2023.

The court granted the motion, finding the proceedings were indeed barred by the limitation period, applying the "discovery" rule as interpreted in recent case law, and dismissing the "continuing offence" argument as a distraction.

The defendant corporation was charged with using a property zoned for residential use as a commercial business in violation of the City of Hamilton Zoning By-law.

The court found that the defendant established a legal non-conforming use defense based on continuous commercial use since the property's original construction in the late 1940s.

The court also found ambiguity in the applicable zoning by-law as of the alleged offense date and determined the defendant acted with due diligence in responding to prior enforcement notices.

The charge was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle carelessly contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act and, as a young driver, operating with blood alcohol concentration above zero contrary to section 44.5 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown presented evidence of an overturned vehicle at an accident scene, observations of impairment, and breath test results showing blood alcohol above zero.

The defendant presented no evidence.

The court found that the Crown established a prima facie case from which careless driving could be inferred, and the defendant's failure to provide an explanation resulted in conviction on both counts.