Noel Gerry

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.

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 Appellant appealed the Registrar of Motor Vehicles' decision to suspend her driver's licence for medical reasons under s. 47(1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The suspension was based on a Medical Condition Report from her neurologist diagnosing her with mild cognitive impairment and her subsequent failure to complete a required functional driving assessment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the medical evidence from the Appellant's treating physicians outweighed the anecdotal evidence from her family members.

The Tribunal concluded that the Appellant's cognitive impairment is likely to significantly interfere with her ability to drive safely and confirmed the Registrar's decision to suspend her licence.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Registrar to refuse its application for a liquor sales licence.

The Registrar proposed refusal on the basis that an officer and director of the appellant was a member of the Neo-Black Movement (NBM), a criminal organization, which afforded reasonable grounds for belief that the appellant would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal found on a balance of probabilities that the NBM is a criminal organization and that the director is a member.

The Tribunal concluded that this membership provided reasonable grounds for belief that the business would not be carried on with honesty and integrity, and directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse the application.

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 plaintiff brought an action claiming she overpaid a private mortgage based on an alleged oral agreement to reduce the interest rate from 14% to prime plus 4% upon renewal.

The defendant estate counterclaimed for the outstanding balance at 14% interest and moved for summary judgment.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Statute of Frauds as there was no written evidence of the alleged oral agreement.

The court also held that the doctrine of part performance did not apply because the plaintiff's continued mortgage payments were not unequivocally referable to the alleged oral agreement.

The plaintiff's action was dismissed, and judgment was granted on the counterclaim.

The Registrar issued a proposal to suspend the Appellant's liquor licence for 30 days for permitting drunkenness and failing to clear signs of alcohol consumption.

The Appellant conceded the failure to clear signs of alcohol but appealed the allegation of permitting drunkenness.

The Tribunal found that a patron was in an advanced state of intoxication in a karaoke room, and that the Appellant's staff ought to have known of her condition before an inspector brought it to their attention.

The Tribunal concluded the Appellant contravened section 45(1) of Regulation 719/90 and directed the parties to provide written submissions on penalty.

The appellant, a licensed establishment, applied to expand its indoor liquor licensed area.

Two objectors, a commercial condominium corporation and a neighbouring unit owner, opposed the application, citing non-compliance with condominium by-laws and concerns about noise, litter, and disorderly crowds.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the objectors failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that granting the licence was not in the public interest.

However, acknowledging evidence of occasional late-night disorderly conduct outside the premises, the Tribunal directed the Registrar to approve the application subject to conditions, including a reduced capacity limit, security requirements, and noise signage.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued Notices of Proposal to refuse to renew the liquor sales licence of UFO KTV Inc. and to refuse to transfer that licence to MYST KTV.

The Registrar alleged numerous violations of the Liquor Licence Act and its regulations over an eight-month period, including serving minors, overcrowding, permitting drug use, and failing to post a suspension sign.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that multiple violations occurred and that the licensee's past conduct afforded reasonable grounds for belief that it would not carry on business in accordance with the law and with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to carry out the proposal to refuse to renew the licence, rendering the transfer application moot.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days for permitting drunkenness on its premises.

Following a hearing where the Tribunal found the appellant had permitted drunkenness, the parties made a joint submission agreeing to a 14-day suspension.

The Tribunal accepted the joint submission, finding the 14-day suspension appropriate to protect the public, and ordered the suspension on consent.

The Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing proposed to suspend the appellant's liquor licence for 14 days after inspectors found a severely intoxicated patron vomiting and unresponsive at the appellant's karaoke bar.

The appellant appealed, arguing it was in the process of removing the patron safely.

The Tribunal applied the two-part test for permitting drunkenness and found that the appellant knew the patron was intoxicated but failed to remove him safely within a reasonable period of time.

Given the patron's medical distress, the Tribunal noted that calling an ambulance would have been the appropriate response rather than relying on an Uber or the patron's friends.

The Tribunal found the appellant liable and directed the parties to provide written submissions on the appropriate sanction.

The appellant appealed a proposal by the Registrar of Alcohol, Gaming and Racing to revoke its liquor licence and impose an interim suspension.

The appellant conceded that it breached a condition of its licence by allowing a prohibited individual on the premises on two occasions, thereby failing to maintain control over the premises.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the appellant failed to implement an effective compliance plan and could not be relied upon to enforce the licence conditions.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to revoke the liquor licence.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming imposed a monetary penalty on the appellant establishment for allegedly permitting drunkenness, contrary to s. 45(1) of O. Reg. 719/90 under the Liquor Licence Act.

The appellant appealed to the Licence Appeal Tribunal.

The Tribunal found that while a patron was drunk, the establishment's manager acted reasonably by cutting off alcohol service, removing alcohol from the room, and allowing the patron to wait inside for a safe ride home rather than forcing him outside in the cold.

The Tribunal concluded the appellant did not permit drunkenness and ordered the monetary penalty set aside.

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.

The applicant appealed an Order of Monetary Penalty issued by the Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming.

At the hearing, the Registrar advised that further information had been made available and the Order of Monetary Penalty was withdrawn.

The Tribunal concluded the matter and closed the file.

The Registrar of Alcohol and Gaming issued an order imposing two $1,000 monetary penalties against the applicant licence holder for permitting drunkenness on its premises on two separate occasions.

On appeal, the Licence Appeal Tribunal found that on the first occasion, the patron was drunk and the applicant knew or ought to have known of the intoxication, confirming the penalty.

On the second occasion, while the patron was found to be drunk, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant knew or ought to have known, as the determinative actions occurred in the washroom away from staff.

The Tribunal confirmed the first penalty and set aside the second.