Mary A. Ross Hendriks, J.P.

The defendant was charged with willfully failing to inform the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) of a material change in circumstances in connection with his entitlement to benefits, contrary to section 149(2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997.

The charge arose from surveillance conducted in December 2011 that showed the defendant engaging in activities including driving, making deliveries, and shopping, which the WSIB alleged constituted material changes that should have been reported.

The defendant was found not guilty after the court determined that the Crown had failed to prove the mens rea element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a serious workplace fall that left a worker permanently paralyzed, the court imposed sentences on three defendants.

The supervisor received 45 days continuous custody based on her pattern of non-compliance with court orders and prior convictions under environmental statutes.

An employee received a $2,000 fine for obstructing an MOL inspector.

The corporate employer received a $75,000 fine.

The court emphasized deterrence as the paramount sentencing principle for OHSA offences and rejected arguments that the worker's intoxication or the company's inactive status should mitigate the sentences.

The defendant, a licensed taxi driver, was charged with failing to be civil and well-behaved while operating a taxi cab in Toronto, contrary to the Toronto Municipal Code.

The complainant passenger testified that the defendant made discriminatory and insulting comments about various groups including Jamaicans, Jewish people, police officers, Canadian women, and the city of Mumbai.

The defendant denied making the statements.

The court found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, determining that his comments violated both the municipal licensing requirement and the Ontario Human Rights Code.

The Crown prosecuted three defendants under the Occupational Health and Safety Act following a serious workplace accident on October 15, 2008, at 45 Meadowvale Road, Toronto, where a worker fell from a roof and suffered a spinal cord injury resulting in paralysis.

The Crown charged Teisha Lootawan as a supervisor with failing to ensure protective devices and adequate fall protection, and with knowingly furnishing false information to an inspector.

J.R. Contracting Property Services Ltd. was charged as an employer with failing to ensure prescribed measures and procedures, failing to provide adequate fall protection, and failing to provide information, instruction, and supervision.

Andrew J. Haniff was charged with hindering and obstructing an inspector.

The court found that the worker was exposed to a fall of more than three metres without fall protection equipment or training.

The court determined that Lootawan acted as a supervisor with authority over workers, that J.R. Contracting was the employer despite cash-only payments and on-call arrangements, and that Haniff refused to answer lawful questions from the inspector.

All defendants were convicted on all counts.

The accused was charged with failing to use a crosswalk contrary to the Highway Traffic Act.

Prior to entering a plea, the accused brought a motion under sections 11(b) and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings based on delay.

The Crown opposed the motion.

The court found that the accused's right to be tried within a reasonable time had been infringed and granted the motion, staying the proceedings.

The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts: failing to remit revenues from fishing licence sales over a two-year period (approximately $50,931.92) contrary to the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, 1997, and unlawfully possessing fish in excess of the daily possession limit contrary to the Ontario Fishery Regulations, 2007.

The defendant was a 50-year-old Canadian citizen operating a fishing licence sales business who had recently undergone personal bankruptcy and made partial restitution of approximately $30,000 out of $98,000 owed.

The court imposed a 30-day intermittent sentence (served on weekends), a $300 fine for the possession offence, and two years of probation, balancing denunciation and general deterrence against mitigating factors including the defendant's economic circumstances, guilty plea, and restitution efforts.

The defendant was charged with selling a new home not previously occupied without being registered as a vendor under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act.

The defendant purchased an incomplete home by power of sale in October 2009 and re-listed it for sale in February 2010 without ever occupying it.

The home was sold to the purchaser in April 2010 prior to obtaining an occupancy permit.

The court found that the defendant was a vendor within the meaning of the Act and should have been registered with Tarion.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the home was exempt from the Act because the original builder had declared it exempt on the building permit application.

The court applied a contextual and purposive interpretation of the Act, emphasizing that the defendant never occupied the home and re-sold it prior to completion and obtaining an occupancy permit.

The defendant pleaded guilty to six counts of contravening the Travel Industry Act, 2002 by acting as a travel agent without being registered.

Over a period from October 2009 to May 2010, the defendant engaged in a scheme involving unauthorized use of credit cards, misrepresentation of bookings, and diversion of client payments.

The scheme caused significant financial losses to multiple victims including a children's charity, a travel agency, and individual consumers.

The defendant was sentenced to 90 days in custody served intermittently on weekends, two years probation, and a free-standing restitution order totaling $173,832.23.

A numbered company operating as an entertainment establishment/nightclub was charged with operating without the required municipal license under the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The accused brought a motion for a stay of proceedings pursuant to section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging that its right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter had been infringed.

The Crown opposed the motion.

The court found that the total delay of 17 months, comprising 12 months of Crown and institutional delay, exceeded the acceptable threshold for a routine Part III provincial offence.

The court granted the motion and stayed the proceedings.