Neal J. Smitheman

The City of Toronto appealed a declaration that its 2004 Amending By-Law, which prohibited commercial parking lots from issuing private parking tickets for unauthorized parking, did not apply to Imperial Parking Canada Corporation (Impark).

Impark argued that its signage created a contract whereby it consented to parking even if proper advance payment was not made, subject to a higher daily rate.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's finding that Impark's signs explicitly offered consensual parking, meaning the by-law, which only applied to vehicles parked without consent, did not apply to Impark's fee collection activities.

The appeal was dismissed.

The respondent was acquitted of operating a heavy diesel-fuelled motor vehicle that contravened emission standards under O. Reg. 361/98.

The justice of the peace acquitted the respondent because the Crown had not proved the Drive Clean Guide, which was incorporated by reference into the regulation.

The Crown appealed.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that under s. 5(4) of the Regulations Act, the justice of the peace was required to take judicial notice of the regulation and the Guide incorporated within it.

The acquittal was set aside and a conviction entered.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding it liable for wrongfully dismissing the respondent employee.

The employer argued that the trial judge interfered in the conduct of the trial to such an extent that the image of judicial impartiality was destroyed.

The Court of Appeal agreed, finding that the trial judge unduly intervened by redirecting lines of questioning, extensively cross-examining the employer's witnesses, and requiring the production of a policy manual that was not part of the pleadings.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

Cross-appeals arose from a sixth municipal prosecution alleging campground zoning violations involving camp lots located too close to a residential zone boundary.

The defendants sought reinstatement of a stay for abuse of process based on repeated prosecutions and prejudice, while the prosecutor sought restoration of convictions entered after the justice of the peace had already stayed the charges.

The court held the defendants had not met the stringent "clearest of cases" standard for a stay under s. 7 of the Charter, particularly in the context of ongoing regulatory land-use offences.

It further held that the convictions could not be restored because the justice of the peace required the defence of legal non-conforming use to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt instead of on a balance of probabilities.

Both appeals were dismissed and the order for a new trial was affirmed.

Cross-appeals arose from a sixth municipal prosecution alleging campground zoning violations involving camp lots located too close to a residential zone boundary.

The defendants sought reinstatement of a stay for abuse of process based on repeated prosecutions and prejudice, while the prosecutor sought restoration of convictions entered after the justice of the peace had already stayed the charges.

The court held the defendants had not met the stringent "clearest of cases" standard for a stay under s. 7 of the Charter, particularly in the context of ongoing regulatory land-use offences.

It further held that the convictions could not be restored because the justice of the peace required the defence of legal non-conforming use to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt instead of on a balance of probabilities.

Both appeals were dismissed and the order for a new trial was affirmed.