John J.M. Scarfe

Following guilty pleas to thirteen counts of failing to comply with property standards and unsafe building orders relating to a rental apartment building, the court considered a joint submission on sentence.

Applying the Anthony-Cook public interest test in a regulatory sentencing context, the court accepted the proposed fines for eleven counts but rejected the proposed $75,000 fines for two counts involving dangerous balcony and parking garage conditions posing grave risk to life and permanent injury.

The court emphasized deterrence, denunciation, repeat offending, the corporation's broad economic activity, and the vulnerability of affected tenants.

Fines of $400,000 were substituted on the two unsafe-building counts, for a total fine of $950,000 plus victim fine surcharges and court administration fees.

Liwayway Miranda brought a motion to quash certain charges under the Employment Standards Act and Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, arguing they were laid outside the limitation period.

The motion was brought late in the trial process, after a finding of guilt but before sentencing.

The core issue was whether the offences were "continuous" or "non-continuous" for limitation period purposes.

The court, applying the principles from Hamilton Health Sciences, found the offences to be continuous, emphasizing compliance with orders over timeliness, and dismissed the motion.

The Ministry of Labour charged A & L Hammer Workforce Management Inc. and its sole director, Liwayway Coluna Miranda, with failing to comply with orders to pay employee wages and recruitment fees under the Employment Standards Act and Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act.

The defendants pleaded not guilty, with the corporation's trial proceeding ex-parte.

Ms. Miranda raised a due diligence defence, claiming her business was destroyed and accounts frozen due to a CBSA raid and subsequent criminal charges (later withdrawn).

The court found that Ms. Miranda failed to demonstrate due diligence, as she continued to recruit foreign nationals despite financial difficulties and did not make reasonable efforts to secure funds or engage with the Ministry.

Both the corporation and Ms. Miranda were found guilty on all counts.

The accused, an 80-year-old businessman, applied for judicial interim release on new charges of sexual assault and forcible confinement.

He was already detained on an extradition request from the United States for sex trafficking.

The accused proposed a release plan involving a $325,000 cash deposit and strict house arrest with electronic monitoring, but no surety.

The court denied bail, finding the Crown met its onus on the primary (flight risk), secondary (risk of witness tampering and re-offending), and tertiary (public confidence in the administration of justice) grounds.

The accused sought judicial interim release (bail) following charges including discharging a firearm with intent to wound/endanger life, possession of a loaded prohibited firearm, and careless use of a firearm.

The Crown sought detention on both secondary and tertiary grounds.

The accused was captured on video surveillance discharging a firearm toward Highway 401 during a shooting incident at a restaurant.

He subsequently attended hospital with a gunshot wound.

The court found the accused failed to meet his onus on the secondary ground due to his criminal history involving firearms, the seriousness of the current allegations, and concerns about the reliability of the proposed sureties.

The court also found detention necessary on the tertiary ground to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, given the gravity of the offence, strength of the Crown's case, and the accused's disregard for previous court orders and weapons prohibitions.

The defendant brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charge was operating a motor vehicle while using a handheld communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, alleged to have occurred on February 20, 2018.

The matter proceeded through multiple adjournments over approximately 24 months.

The court applied the framework established in R v Jordan, determining that the presumptive ceiling for Part 1 Provincial Offences Act matters is 18 months.

After deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay was approximately 15 months, falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay was dismissed.

The accused sought judicial interim release (bail) following charges of failing to provide necessaries of life, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, forcible confinement, and multiple counts of assault against his two minor sons over a three-year period.

The Crown sought detention on primary, secondary, and tertiary grounds.

The court found the Crown met its onus on the primary ground due to the serious nature of charges and lack of community ties, and on the tertiary ground based on the horrific nature of the allegations, vulnerability of child victims, and strength of the Crown's case.

The court rejected the secondary ground.

The accused was detained pending trial.