Madison Pulfer

The defendant was charged with two counts under the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 547: operating as a short-term rental operator without registration, and failing to include an operator's registration number in an advertisement.

The Airbnb stay data established that a booking at the defendant's principal residence was made using another person's registration number before the defendant's own permit was issued, generating a deposit to his account.

Although the reservation was cancelled before the guest arrived, the court found that the actus reus of count 1 was made out, interpreting "reservation" and "carrying on business" broadly.

The defendant's due diligence defence failed on both branches — he could not establish a reasonable mistake of fact given his admitted knowledge that his application was still under review, and his remedial efforts (contacting Airbnb and the guest to cancel the booking) were characterized as post-offence conduct relevant only to sentencing.

Count 2 was dismissed because no evidence of an actual advertisement was tendered; the officer never saw one and could only speculate as to its historical existence.

The defendant, 1692038 Ontario Ltd. (Dino’s No Frills), was charged under the City of Toronto Municipal Code for refusing to permit a person with a service animal to remain in their food premises.

The service animal, Odin, was not wearing a visual identifier.

The court focused on whether documentation confirming the need for a service animal was provided by the complainant.

Due to inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding the provision of this documentation, the court applied the R. v. W.(D.) credibility analysis and found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the required documentation was not provided.

Consequently, the charge was dismissed.