Justice D.A. Kinsella

An application under section 74 of the Firearms Act to review the Chief Firearms Officer's decision to revoke the applicant's firearms licence.

The applicant, a retired military officer with PTSD and a history of alcohol abuse, had his licence revoked following several incidents involving mental health crises and impaired driving between October 2017 and September 2018.

The applicant sought to overturn the revocation, presenting new medical evidence from specialized treatment providers indicating significant improvement in his condition, abstinence from alcohol, and minimal risk regarding firearm possession.

The court found the original decision reasonable but determined that the new medical evidence was substantial enough to undermine the factual assumptions underlying the revocation decision and granted the application.

The Crown appealed an acquittal in a prosecution under the Smoke Free Ontario Act for selling tobacco to a minor.

The respondent corporation operated a truck stop convenience store where a 17-year-old purchased cigarettes without being asked for identification.

The Crown alleged the trial justice erred in finding the respondent established the due diligence defence.

The appeal court upheld the acquittal, finding the respondent had implemented comprehensive training, supervision, and compliance measures that resulted in three years of successful compliance checks following prior enforcement notices.

The appellant appealed his conviction for driving a commercial motor vehicle with a major defect, contrary to section 107 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defects included inoperative brakes on a trailer and a crack in a wheel rim, discovered during an MTO inspection on June 18, 2017.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal: lack of evidence of proper service of summons, improper application of credibility assessment principles, and failure to consider the due diligence defence.

The appeal court dismissed all grounds, finding that the summons was properly served, the trial judge correctly applied the W.D. analysis, and the trial judge properly assessed whether the appellant met the due diligence standard for a strict liability offence.