Noel Gerry

The City of Toronto appealed the acquittal of 2694605 Ontario Inc. on charges under the Cannabis Control Act (CCA) for knowingly permitting an illegal cannabis dispensary.

The Justice of the Peace had found the respondent met the statutory defence by taking "reasonable measures" to prevent the activity.

The City argued that "reasonable measures" should be interpreted as "all reasonable steps," akin to a due diligence standard.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming that "reasonable measures" is a lower standard than "all reasonable steps," based on a plain reading of the CCA and comparison with other statutes like the Criminal Code and Liquor Licence Act.

The court found the respondent's actions, including attempts to evict tenants and change locks, were reasonable given the circumstances.

The Applicants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis after successfully securing the reinstatement of their commercial tenancy.

The court found the Respondent's conduct during the lease termination and litigation to be reprehensible and high-handed, justifying an elevated costs award.

Despite the Applicants not filing a Bill of Costs, the court fixed costs at $25,000, all inclusive, payable by the Respondent, considering the reasonableness of counsel's time, the significance of the issues, the Applicants' full success, and their reasonable offers to settle.

The applicants, a tenant and its sole shareholder, sought reinstatement of their commercial lease after the respondent landlord locked them out.

The landlord alleged breaches related to staff conduct (public intoxication, nuisance) and purported to terminate the lease.

The court found that the landlord failed to comply with the mandatory notice requirements under section 19(2) of the Commercial Tenancies Act, rendering the termination unlawful.

Alternatively, the court would have granted relief from forfeiture under section 20(1) of the Act due to the disproportionate nature of the termination, the non-wilful breach, and the landlord's heavy-handed conduct.

The lease was declared to be in full force and effect, and the applicants were awarded damages equivalent to four months' rent.

The plaintiff, J.B., sought judgment on motion without notice against the defendant, R.B., who had been noted in default.

Liability for damages arising from a sexual assault perpetrated by R.B. on J.B. in 1992 had been previously established by partial summary judgment.

The court proceeded to quantify damages based on affidavit evidence, awarding J.B. $275,000 for general and aggravated damages, $632,813 for past loss of income, $20,000 for future care costs, $72,000 for special damages related to child-rearing costs (for a child born of the assault), and $13,213.75 for the Ministry of Health's subrogated account, plus prejudgment interest and fixed costs of $25,000.

The plaintiff, David George Owen, brought a negligence claim against dentist Sukhjeevan Bains following a tooth extraction procedure during which Owen lost consciousness and later experienced a bradycardiac event at the hospital, leading to a "near death experience" and psychological injury.

The court dismissed the claim, finding that Owen failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that Dr. Bains's administration of nitroglycerin (NTG) caused the subsequent bradycardiac event at the hospital.

The court determined that Owen's underlying health conditions were the cause of the events, and Dr. Bains's actions were reasonable given the perceived emergency.

This addendum to a March 25, 2020 endorsement clarifies the final judgment amount and provides instructions for costs submissions.

The parties agreed that the correct amount owing, with accrued interest to September 25, 2019, is $284,164.56, in favour of the Defendant.

The addendum also outlines procedures for serving and filing costs submissions via email, including the use of hyperlinks for caselaw references, given the suspension of court operations.

The applicant, owner and operator of a licensed body rub parlour in Vaughan, sought a declaration that sections of the City of Vaughan By-law 315-2005 regulating hours of operation and dress code requirements for body rub parlours were ultra vires the municipality.

The court found that the impugned provisions, which restricted hours of operation and mandated specific clothing requirements, were in pith and substance criminal legislation regulating prostitution and nudity, matters within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The court quashed sections 13.0(1)(h), 13.4, 13.0(1)(o), and 13.0(1)(p) of the by-law as ultra vires.