Mohammed Brihmi

The corporate defendant, landlord of a commercial property, was charged under the Cannabis Control Act, 2017 for knowingly permitting its premises to be used for the unlawful sale of cannabis.

The tenant had been operating an unlicensed dispensary since 2019.

The defendant argued it took reasonable measures to prevent the activity by changing the locks and serving a statement of claim on the tenant.

The court found the actus reus was proven and rejected the statutory defence, concluding that repeatedly changing locks when previously ineffective, and delaying the advancement of civil litigation, did not constitute objectively or subjectively reasonable steps.

The corporate defendant was convicted.

This decision addresses the enforcement of municipal bylaws concerning accessory structures and debris accumulation on private property within the City of Kawartha Lakes.

The Court confirms the validity of the Township of Emily Comprehensive Zoning Bylaw 1996-30 and the authority of the municipality under the Municipal Act, 2001 to enforce bylaws on private property.

The defendants were found to have exceeded the maximum permitted number of accessory structures and failed to comply with a Clean and Clear notice to remove debris by the specified deadline.

The Court rejected the defence of legal non-conforming use due to lack of evidence that the structures predated the bylaw.

The defendants’ claims of financial hardship and renovation activities did not excuse non-compliance.

The Court found the prosecution met its burden beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted the defendants.

The applicant, facing a speeding charge, brought a Charter motion alleging a s. 7 violation due to insufficient disclosure.

The applicant sought the specific manual for the radar device used, the officer's qualifications, and GPS records of device testing.

The court ordered the disclosure of the specific radar manual, finding it relevant for challenging the speed measurement's reliability.

However, the court dismissed the requests for the officer's qualifications and GPS data, deeming them speculative and irrelevant for a Part 1 speeding offence.

The court also found that s. 7 of the Charter did not apply to this minor, absolute liability offence, and that the prosecution had otherwise provided sufficient disclosure.

The Charter motion was dismissed, and the matter was set for trial.

The defendant was charged with a strict liability regulatory offence under the City of Toronto's noise by-law for excessive noise emanating from her unit.

The complainant, a neighbour, provided extensive logs, police reports, and emails detailing consistent loud music, banging, screaming, and running at late hours, disturbing her and her daughter's peace and sleep.

The defendant denied the noise, claiming it was impossible due to her work schedule, and argued she could not be responsible for the actions of adult nieces staying with her.

The court found the complainant's evidence credible and corroborated, establishing that excessive noise originated from the defendant's unit.

The court also found the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in preventing the noise, despite being aware of the complaints and a co-op board order to remove her guests.

The defence's application for abuse of process, arguing forum shopping due to a parallel small claims court action, was dismissed as the regulatory charge was distinct from the civil claim.

The defendant was found guilty.

The applicant, Andrea Morales, brought an 11(b) Charter motion for a stay of proceedings due to unreasonable delay in a Provincial Offences Act charge for a noise bylaw violation.

The court applied the R. v. Jordan framework, calculating the total delay, subtracting defence-attributable delay and delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic as an exceptional circumstance.

The net delay was found to be below the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial offence matters.

The court also addressed the applicant's claim regarding lack of disclosure, ruling that the municipal bylaw was a public document not subject to first-party disclosure rules.

The motion was dismissed as the applicant failed to meet the onus of demonstrating unreasonable delay.

The Crown applied under s. 490(2)(a) of the Criminal Code for further detention of seized items (physical documents and digital data) beyond the initial three months.

The investigation involves alleged fraudulent Employment Insurance Benefits claims by the respondents.

The court applied the test from R. v. Tennina, considering whether an investigation is ongoing, if the materials are necessary, and the progress of the investigation.

Despite the volume of materials, translation needs, and COVID-19 impacts, the court found the investigation active and the materials necessary, granting a further detention order for one year.

The defendant was charged with three offences arising from a motor vehicle collision on November 5, 2015: careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act, failing to remain at the scene of an accident contrary to section 200(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act, and making a false statement in a collision report contrary to section 9(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The Crown presented evidence from the victim, an independent civilian witness, and a police officer.

The defendant testified in her own defence.

The court found the Crown's evidence credible and reliable, particularly the corroborating testimony of the independent witness.

The defendant's testimony was found to be problematic, inconsistent, and contradictory.

The court found the defendant guilty on all three counts.

The Crown brought an application to revoke the bail of Schaun Odoherty pursuant to section 524 of the Criminal Code on the basis of an anticipatory breach.

The Crown argued that the defendant's threatening emails to police and his demands for the return of seized weapons and other property demonstrated an intention to breach his bail conditions.

The court found that while the emails were concerning, the defendant's actual conduct when attending the police station contradicted any intention to breach his conditions.

The defendant did not request the return of the prohibited items and left peacefully when informed they were evidence.

The court concluded the Crown failed to meet its onus on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the application.

The defendant was convicted of injuring or destroying a tree growing on the boundary between adjoining lands without the consent of the land owner, contrary to section 10(3) of the Forestry Act.

The sentencing hearing addressed the appropriate penalty under the Act, which provides for a maximum fine of $20,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three months.

The court considered mitigating factors including the defendant's lack of criminal record, his receipt of a municipal permit of exemption identifying the tree as hazardous, and his cooperation through an agreed statement of facts.

The court also considered aggravating factors including the impact on the neighbours and the delay in removing the tree despite knowledge of its hazardous status.

The court imposed a fine of $5,000 and declined to impose a probation order.

The defendant was charged under the Insurance Act of Ontario with acting as an unlicensed insurance agent.

The prosecution alleged that the defendant offered or assumed to act in the negotiation of insurance on behalf of an insurer without being a licensed agent or broker.

The defendant claimed she was merely a go-between connecting the complainant with another party and was at best a salesperson.

The court found that the defendant engaged in multiple communications, discussions, and meetings with the complainant, took copies of his driver's license and vehicle ownership, arranged for delivery of fraudulent insurance documents, and received payment.

The court rejected the defendant's credibility and found her guilty of acting as an unlicensed insurance agent in violation of section 393(23) of the Insurance Act.

The defendant was charged with careless driving contrary to section 130 of the Highway Traffic Act following a motor vehicle collision on May 7, 2013, at the intersection of Finch Avenue West and Jane Street in Toronto.

The Crown alleged the defendant was following too closely, was distracted by a cellular telephone, and failed to maintain a safe distance from the vehicle ahead, resulting in a rear-end collision.

The defendant claimed she was exercising reasonable care and that the vehicle ahead stopped unexpectedly.

The court found the Crown proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant drove carelessly without exercising necessary prudence and attention, and without reasonably considering other road users.

The defendant was convicted.

A private information was brought against the defendant for injuring or destroying a tree growing on the boundary between adjoining lands without the consent of the land owner, contrary to section 10(3) of the Forestry Act of Ontario.

The defendant, a property owner, had instructed a tree removal company to cut down a Norway maple tree located on the property line between his property and the plaintiff's property.

The defendant had obtained a Confirmation of Exemption from the City of Toronto identifying the tree as imminently hazardous and requiring its removal.

The defendant argued that no conflict existed between the provincial Forestry Act and the City of Toronto's municipal code regarding hazardous trees, and that he was entitled to remove the tree based on the city's determination.

The court found that the defendant had failed to obtain the consent of the co-owners before removal, despite the exemption document explicitly stating that the applicant must resolve ownership issues.

The defendant was convicted of the offence.

The defendant was charged with three offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997: wilfully failing to inform the WSIB of a material change in circumstances between August 23, 2011 and September 25, 2012; and knowingly making false or misleading statements on September 9, 2011 and October 17, 2011 regarding his claim for benefits.

The prosecution presented evidence including testimony from a WSIB case manager and a private investigator, as well as surveillance video showing the defendant working at his former place of employment (Mystic Restaurant) while receiving benefits and claiming he was unable to work or drive.

The defendant was convicted on all three counts.

The defendant was charged with unsafe turn/lane change contrary to section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The collision occurred at the intersection of Spadina Avenue and Bremner Boulevard in Toronto when the defendant's Honda SUV made a right turn and collided with a motorcycle.

The court found that the prosecution proved the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant's due diligence defence failed because he made an unsafe right turn in a short distance where he was unable to see the motorcycle or stop to avoid collision.

The court rejected the defendant's assertion that the curb lane was clear, finding it unreasonable given the traffic conditions and the short distance and time available for the maneuver.

The defendant brought a motion for a stay of proceedings under section 24(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, alleging an infringement of her right to trial within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Charter.

The charge was for Red Light-Fail to Stop under the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant was charged on November 2, 2010, and the matter proceeded through multiple trial dates, a conviction in absentia, a reopening of the conviction, and subsequent adjournments.

The court found that the total delay of 24 months and one week, with institutional delay of 10 months and 9 days, exceeded the guideline of 8 months established in R. v. Morin.

The court granted the stay of proceedings.