3 total
Landlord convicted for knowingly permitting unlicensed cannabis sales.
The prosecution alleged that the corporate landlord knowingly permitted premises to be used for the unlawful sale of cannabis contrary to s. 13(1) of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017.
The court held that an agreed statement of facts entered on consent under s. 46(4) of the Provincial Offences Act was binding and conclusively established that no cannabis licence had ever been issued for the business operating at the premises.
On the evidence, including the lease terms, the notice of contravention, and the landlord's own testimony, the court found the mens rea element proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court rejected the statutory defence under s. 13(2), holding that letters to the tenant without meaningful enforcement steps, legal action, lock changes, attendance, or police involvement were not reasonable measures in the circumstances.
A conviction was entered.
A strict liability charge against a grocery store for refusing entry to a service animal was dismissed because the prosecution failed to prove the required medical documentation was provided.
The defendant, 1692038 Ontario Ltd. (Dino’s No Frills), was charged under the City of Toronto Municipal Code for refusing to permit a person with a service animal to remain in their food premises.
The service animal, Odin, was not wearing a visual identifier.
The court focused on whether documentation confirming the need for a service animal was provided by the complainant.
Due to inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding the provision of this documentation, the court applied the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis and found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the required documentation was not provided.
Consequently, the charge was dismissed.
The defendant was sentenced in absentia to 240 days in custody and a one-year probation extension for willfully failing to pay restitution.
The defendant, Adam Gardin, was sentenced for eight counts of willfully failing to comply with a probation order that included restitution terms.
The court imposed a sentence of 30 days in custody for each count, to be served consecutively, totaling 240 days incarceration.
Additionally, the court ordered a one-year continuation of his original 2019 probation order, rejecting the prosecution's request for a new two-year probation order with modified restitution terms due to lack of jurisdiction under the Provincial Offences Act for a new order in this context.
The decision emphasized the defendant's lack of remorse, pattern of non-compliance, and the ongoing harm to victims as aggravating factors.
