The appellant, a store clerk, sold cigarettes to a 17-year-old test shopper without asking for identification and was convicted under the Smoke Free Ontario Act.
He appealed, arguing that the random compliance check constituted entrapment because the authorities lacked reasonable suspicion that he or the store were engaged in illegal activity.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the criminal law doctrine of entrapment, specifically the requirement for reasonable suspicion, does not apply to bona fide random test shopping used to monitor compliance with regulatory statutes.
