3 total
Corporate tenant convicted of Fire Code violation for failing to remove additional locks from emergency exit doors.
The City of Brampton prosecuted two corporate defendants for Fire Code violations related to emergency exit doors at a flea market.
The defendants were ordered to remove additional locks and latches from the doors.
The owner was acquitted after charges were dismissed due to defective wording.
The principal tenant argued the Fire Code did not apply to the exit doors and that a door with a slide bolt and push bar only had one releasing operation.
The court rejected these arguments, finding the Fire Code applied and the door had two releasing operations.
The tenant failed to establish a due diligence defence and was convicted of failing to comply with the inspection order.
The court upheld a landlord's acquittal for failing to comply with a building code order based on due diligence, despite finding the landlord's defence was an impermissible collateral attack.
The appellant appealed an acquittal on a charge of failing to comply with an Order to Comply issued under the Building Code Act.
The respondent, a property owner, had leased commercial premises to a tenant who performed unauthorized construction.
The respondent received an order to comply but argued it did not apply to them as the landlord.
The trial court acquitted the respondent based on lack of collateral attack and due diligence.
On appeal, the court found the respondent was engaged in an impermissible collateral attack but upheld the acquittal based on the trial court's finding of due diligence, which was reasonably supported by the evidence.
A courier's appeal of a parking conviction was dismissed because the municipal by-law clearly prohibited leaving an unauthorized vehicle in an accessible parking space, overriding any common law delivery exceptions.
A courier company appealed a conviction for parking a vehicle in a designated accessible parking space without displaying a valid permit.
The appellant argued that the vehicle was "standing" rather than "parked" and that the common law exception for loading and unloading merchandise applied.
The court upheld the conviction, finding that the by-law clearly prohibited parking, standing, or leaving unauthorized vehicles in accessible spaces, and that the appellant's vehicle was left unattended for an unreasonable period while the driver completed a delivery to an upper floor of a building.
The court rejected arguments based on common law exceptions and statutory interpretation, emphasizing the remedial purpose of accessibility legislation.
