4 total
Due diligence failed; guilt entered on all eight public health order counts.
The prosecution alleged that the defendant disobeyed a public health order requiring him to cease operating a food premises, stop advertising products, and provide specified food-safety and business information.
The court accepted the evidence of public health inspectors and related witnesses, found that the defendant was the sole proprietor operating the business, and rejected his evidence that he was merely assisting his niece.
Applying the due diligence framework for regulatory offences, the court held that the defendant took no reasonable steps to comply with or challenge the order.
The prosecution proved all eight counts beyond a reasonable doubt, and findings of guilt were entered on each count.
Regulatory zoning offences drew meaningful fines and a prohibitory order.
After finding the defendant guilty at trial of three municipal zoning and planning offences arising from a trailer and cabin on a vacant rural residential property, the court proceeded immediately to sentence.
Applying regulatory sentencing principles that prioritize general deterrence, specific deterrence, public protection, and proportionality, the court rejected the defendant's request for a nominal fine tied to historical development fees.
The court treated the deliberate non-compliance, including continued non-compliance after an order to come into compliance, as aggravating, while recognizing the absence of a prior record as mitigating.
The defendant was fined $5,000 on each count and a prohibitory order was made under s. 67(3) of the Planning Act effective June 30, 2025.
Trailer and cabin zoning convictions upheld; access-permit charge dismissed.
The prosecution alleged that the defendant parked a trailer on a vacant lot, erected a cabin before establishing a permitted primary use, and placed that cabin within the minimum water setback contrary to municipal zoning requirements.
After denying an adjournment request by the self-represented defendant, the court qualified a municipal planning official as an expert under Mohan and accepted her opinion that the cabin was an impermissible standalone accessory use and was sited within the restricted setback.
Applying the W.(D.) framework, the court found the defendant's evidence did not raise a reasonable doubt and rejected mistake-of-law style explanations.
Count 4 respecting road access was dismissed for failure to establish a prima facia case, but counts 1 to 3 were proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court dismissed the applicant's s. 11(b) Charter application for a stay of proceedings, finding the net delay fell below the 18-month ceiling.
The applicant, Troy Simpson, sought a stay of proceedings under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging a violation of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b).
The total delay from the swearing of the Information to the anticipated end of trial was 576 days.
The court deducted 91 days attributable to defence delay due to lack of diligence in pursuing disclosure and setting pre-trials, and an additional 90 days for exceptional circumstances related to the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on court operations.
After these deductions, the net delay was calculated at 395 days (12.9 months), which falls below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for the Ontario Court of Justice.
Consequently, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.
