Lindsay Lake

The appellant was convicted of selling tobacco to a person under 19 years old contrary to section 3(1) of the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

The trial judge found the appellant credible but convicted him on the basis that he conducted a subjective analysis rather than an objective one, and should have requested identification.

The appellant appealed, arguing that the due diligence defence was available where he honestly and reasonably believed the buyer appeared to be 25 years or older based on his training, experience, and observation.

The appellate court allowed the appeal, finding that section 3(2) of the Act contemplates that sellers need not request identification in all cases, and that an honest mistake of fact constitutes a valid defence where the seller has diligently assessed the buyer's apparent age using their knowledge and experience.

The defendant was charged with speeding 104 km/h in a posted 90 kph zone contrary to s. 128 of the Highway Traffic Act.

The incident occurred on March 7, 2013.

The defendant brought an application under s. 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a stay of proceedings due to a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time under s. 11(b) of the Charter.

The Crown took no position on the application.

The court found that the total delay of 12 months and 14 days from the date of the offence to the trial date was unreasonable, consisting of an excessive 6-month intake period to schedule the trial and a further 5-month delay from the Notice of Trial to the actual trial date.

The court determined that a reasonable neutral intake period for a Part 1 proceeding should be 30 to 45 days.

The defendant also demonstrated actual prejudice due to the delay.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.