Madeleine Louise Irene Chin-Yee

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 Crown appealed a $7,500 fine imposed on a corporate defendant for an Occupational Health and Safety Act violation, arguing the lower courts erred in assessing the corporation's size and applying the parity principle between individual and corporate offenders.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the lower courts incorrectly restricted consideration of the corporation's economic activity to the local operation and improperly relied on sentencing precedents for individuals.

The fine was increased to $40,000.

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claiming her business was destroyed and accounts frozen due to a CBSA raid and subsequent criminal charges (later withdrawn).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 Crown sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice concerning findings on due diligence and penalty reduction in regulatory offence charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The motion for leave was dismissed as the proposed grounds of appeal did not meet the high bar under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court found that the alleged errors involved the misapplication of well-established legal principles rather than issues requiring the Court of Appeal's guidance on statutory interpretation or general legal principles.