Natalia Krayzman

The Ontario Court of Justice found 10695025 Canada Ltd. guilty of 15 counts of Fire Code violations occurring on October 4, 2023, at a leased industrial property in Mississauga where cannabis was cultivated.

The defendant corporation did not appear at trial, which proceeded in absentia under s. 54(1) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court accepted the testimony of a fire inspector and photographic evidence detailing multiple violations including lack of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, obstructed exits, improper fire separations, and inadequate fire extinguisher maintenance.

The court also addressed the issue of corporate liability post-dissolution, interpreting s. 226(2) of the Canada Business Corporations Act to hold a dissolved corporation liable for offences committed up to two years after dissolution if it continued business activities.

The 16th count was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding NFPA 25 compliance.

The defendant, charged under the Highway Traffic Act, brought a lost evidence application under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He alleged that police improperly handled and stored his dashcam and memory card, leading to the loss of crucial video evidence that would have supported his defence.

The Crown argued that the defendant failed to prove a Charter breach, specifically that no evidence was lost or that police acted negligently.

The court dismissed the application, finding no violation of the defendant's Charter rights, as there was no evidence that footage existed or was lost due to police negligence.

This judgment concerns a trial for a Highway Traffic Act offence where the defendant was charged with making a right turn not in safety, resulting in a pedestrian fatality.

The court heard testimony from civilian and expert police witnesses.

The defence challenged witness credibility, identity, and the correctness of the HTA section under which the defendant was charged.

The court found the prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant failed to exercise reasonable care in making the turn, striking and killing a pedestrian who was properly crossing.

The defence of due diligence was rejected, and a conviction was entered against the defendant under section 142(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The defendant brought an application for a stay of proceedings under s.11(b) of the Charter, alleging unreasonable delay in a Highway Traffic Act charge involving a fatality.

The total elapsed time from information laid to trial completion was 62 months, significantly exceeding the 18-month Jordan ceiling.

However, the court meticulously analyzed the chronology, deducting periods attributable to defence delay (e.g., failure to retain counsel, changing resolution intentions, non-attendance), joint delay, and exceptional circumstances (pandemic shutdown, mistrial due to counsel conduct, illnesses).

After these deductions, the net delay attributable to the Crown or institutional factors was found to be 7.6 months (232.5 days), or at most 14 months under an alternative calculation.

As the net delay remained below the 18-month ceiling, the application for a stay of proceedings was dismissed.