6 total
The court upheld a search warrant for cell phone records but excluded SMS content, and dismissed a section 11(b) delay application.
The applicant brought Charter applications under sections 8 and 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the context of a trial on Highway Traffic Act charges.
The applicant challenged the validity of a search warrant for cellular telephone records on the basis that the Information to Obtain was misleading and that the Justice of the Peace erred in issuing the warrant.
The applicant also sought a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.
The court found that while the Information to Obtain contained minor inaccuracies, it was not materially misleading and the Justice of the Peace did not err in issuing the warrant.
However, the court excluded evidence relating to the actual text or content of SMS messages as an unreasonable breach of section 8 rights.
The court dismissed the section 11(b) application, finding that the delay of approximately 7.5 months from trial readiness to trial date fell within constitutionally tolerable limits for provincial offences matters.
Live music venue found guilty of noise by-law infractions and operating without a nightclub licence.
The City of Toronto charged Hard Luck Inc., a live music venue, with multiple by-law infractions relating to noise disturbances and operating an entertainment establishment without the necessary licence.
The court found the testimony of the primary complainant and the investigating by-law officer credible, establishing that the noise was likely to disturb a reasonable person and that the venue operated as a nightclub rather than an eating establishment.
The defendant failed to establish a due diligence defence for four of the five counts.
Hard Luck Inc. was found guilty on four counts, while one count of operating without a licence was dismissed because the defendant reasonably believed its eating establishment licence was sufficient at the time.
A live music venue was convicted of municipal noise and licensing by-law infractions after failing to establish a due diligence defence for most charges.
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.
The corporate defendant was convicted of occupational health and safety offences after an excavator tipped over, as its informal safety practices failed to establish due diligence.
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 convicted of careless driving after fatally striking a pedestrian while making a left turn.
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.
The defendants were acquitted of making false statements to insurers due to reasonable doubt regarding mens rea and authorization.
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.
