M. H. Conacher

Hard Luck Inc., operating as a live music venue bar, was charged with five provincial offences under the City of Toronto Municipal Code: operating an entertainment establishment without a licence (counts 1 and 3), causing noise likely to disturb residents (counts 2 and 5), and permitting sound from electronic devices to project beyond the property (count 4).

The prosecution relied on testimony from a resident living approximately one city block away who documented extensive noise complaints over several months, and a provincial offences officer who observed and heard noise emanating from the premises.

The defendant presented evidence of soundproofing efforts and expert acoustic testing suggesting minimal noise projection.

The court found the defendant guilty on counts 1, 2, 4, and 5, but acquitted on count 3 based on a due diligence defence.

The court rejected the defendant's acoustic expert evidence as having little probative value given the temporal gap between testing and the alleged offences, and found the resident's testimony credible and compelling.

Anray Limited, a small excavation and concrete company, was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from an incident on August 10, 2010, at a residential renovation project in Toronto.

The charges involved: (1) failure to ensure an excavator was moved safely; (2) failure to ensure the excavator operator was assisted by a signaller; and (3) failure to ensure the operator wore a seat belt.

The defendant was found guilty on Counts 1 and 3, with Count 3 stayed as a contributing element of Count 1.

The defendant was acquitted on Count 2.

The court rejected the defendant's due diligence defence, finding that the company's informal, oral safety practices were insufficient and that the defendant failed to establish reasonable precautions in the circumstances.

The accused was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, failure to yield to a pedestrian contrary to sections 140(1)(a), and turn not in safety contrary to section 142(1).

The Crown proceeded only on the careless driving and turn not in safety charges.

The accused struck a pedestrian with his truck while making a left turn at a signalized intersection.

The court found that the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused drove carelessly and that the accused failed to establish a due diligence defence.

The court found the accused guilty of careless driving and entered a conditional stay of proceedings on the turn not in safety charge pursuant to the Kienapple principle.

Three defendants were charged with making false or misleading statements to insurers under the Insurance Act of Ontario.

Aksana Miakouchkina, operating manager of Ontario Disability Management Inc., was charged with knowingly making false statements on treatment plan forms (OCF-18s) submitted to insurers.

The corporation was charged on a vicarious liability basis.

Gregori Miakouchkine, the sole director and president, was charged with failing to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from committing the offence.

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt on all counts and acquitted all three defendants.