6 total
The court upheld multiple consumer protection convictions against electrical contractors but struck an illegal reparation condition from the sentence.
The Ontario Court of Justice addressed appeals from convictions and sentences involving two electrical companies and their principals for multiple violations of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.
The appellants argued that their in-home service agreements did not constitute "direct agreements" under the legislation and asserted a due diligence defence.
The court rejected these arguments, confirming that the definition of direct agreements extends to consumer-initiated service calls at a residence and that reliance on legal advice did not establish due diligence.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the conviction appeals and upheld the sentences, with the sole exception of removing a probation condition requiring reparation payments because the sentencing judge lacked the authority to impose it.
Directors liable for misleading consumer contracts under the Consumer Protection Act.
The prosecution alleged that a travel‑membership company and its two directors committed numerous offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 relating to timeshare and membership contracts sold through high‑pressure sales presentations.
The court found the corporate defendant repeatedly failed to provide contracts containing mandatory statutory information, misrepresented cancellation rights, and refused refunds after consumers attempted to exercise statutory cancellation rights.
The court applied strict‑liability principles for regulatory offences and assessed party liability under aiding‑and‑abetting doctrines.
The directors were convicted on many improper‑contract and unfair‑practice counts because, as officers and directing minds of the corporation, they knew or ought to have known that the contracts were deficient and misleading.
However, they were acquitted on many failure‑to‑refund counts where the Crown failed to prove their direct involvement or knowledge of the refusal to refund.
Assistant bailiff registration refused due to applicant's lengthy criminal record and false application statement.
The appellant appealed the Registrar of Bailiffs' proposal to refuse his application for registration as an assistant bailiff.
The Registrar based the refusal on the appellant's lengthy criminal record, which included convictions for theft, assault, and dishonesty, as well as a false statement on his application regarding his criminal history.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant's criminal record and attempt to mislead the Registrar provided reasonable grounds to believe he would not act in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.
The appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to carry out the proposal to refuse registration.
Witness summons to Director quashed as overly broad and seeking irrelevant evidence for de novo hearing.
The appellants appealed an order for immediate compliance issued by the Director under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002.
Prior to the hearing, the appellants served a witness summons on the Director, seeking her testimony and the production of extensive investigative records.
The Director brought a motion to quash the summons.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the motion, finding that the summons was overly broad, constituted a fishing expedition, and sought evidence that was irrelevant to the Tribunal's de novo hearing.
The Tribunal also noted that the Director, acting in a regulatory and enforcement capacity, should not be compelled to testify about her decision-making process.
Tribunal extends immediate compliance order against HVAC rental company and denies stay pending appeal.
The Director under the Consumer Protection Act issued an order for immediate compliance against the appellants regarding their HVAC rental business practices.
The appellants appealed the order.
The Director brought a motion to extend the immediate compliance order until the hearing, while the appellants brought a counter-motion to stay the order.
The Licence Appeal Tribunal granted the Director's motion to extend the order, finding that the public interest in consumer protection outweighed the appellants' business interests.
The Tribunal dismissed the appellants' motion for a stay, applying the RJR MacDonald test and concluding that the appellants failed to demonstrate irreparable harm and that the balance of inconvenience favoured the public interest.
The court varied unreasonable consecutive sentences imposed in absentia to concurrent terms on consent.
Appeals by Richard Storey and Peter Cordeiro against convictions and sentences for offences under the Consumer Protection Act.
Both appellants were tried in absentia and convicted.
The original sentences imposed were significantly harsher than those sought by Crown counsel.
On judicial pretrial, the Crown and defence counsel agreed that the original sentences were unreasonable and would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The convictions were upheld on consent, but the sentences were substantially varied to reflect more proportionate terms of imprisonment, with concurrent rather than consecutive service, and restitution orders were imposed.
