ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
4863-999-24-243002631
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
— AND —
AUTUMN PARK QUEEN BRITIAN LTD.
Before Justice of the Peace J. Veenboer
Heard on July 15, 2025
Reasons for Judgment released on November 24, 2025
V. Pankou counsel for the prosecution
M.J. Neirinck counsel for the defendant
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE VEENBOER:
INTRODUCTION
1On April 23, 2024, corporate defendant, Autumn Park Queen Britian LTD, was charged with one count of being the landlord of the premises, 213A Queen Street East in the City of Toronto, and knowingly permitting the premises to be used in relation to the unlawful sale or distribution of cannabis as prohibited by section 6 of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 26, Sched. 1 (the “CCA” or the “Act”), contrary to section 13(1) of the Act.
2The matter was initially scheduled for a three-day trial, starting July 15, 20251. On this date, Nina Moscone Marrese (“Ms. Marrese” or the “defendant”) appeared before the court with defence counsel, M.J. Neirinck.
3Under oath, Ms. Marrese identified herself as the principal shareholder and director of Autumn Park Queen Britian LTD., which owns the property located at 213A Queen Street East in the City of Toronto since 2011 (to present date)2.
4Once the court was satisfied the matter was proper and jurisdiction confirmed, Ms. Marrese was arraigned, and she entered a plea of not guilty on behalf of Autumn Park Queen Britian LTD. The prosecution had one witness, Bylaw Enforcement Officer (BEO) Capizzo, badge 6237, and the defence had one witness, Ms. Marrese.
STATUTES CONSIDERED
5In addition to the CCA, the court considered the Cannabis Licencing Act, 2018 (the “CLA”), the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 15, Sched. 1 (the “AGCOA”), the Provincial Offences Act R.S.O. 1990 (the “POA”), and the Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 (the “Criminal Code”).
THE OFFENCE
6The lawful sale of cannabis for recreational use was established in Ontario under the CCA, which came into force in October 20183. Since then, cannabis can be legally purchased by the public either online through the Ontario Cannabis Store or in-person at a licenced and authorized private store-front retailer. The Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (the “AGCO”) is responsible for licencing private store-front retailers pursuant to the CLA (Brodie v. Attorney General of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 5735).
7The sale and distribution of cannabis other than by an authorized cannabis retailer is prohibited under section 6 of the CCA, which states:
Sale
(1) No person shall sell cannabis, other than an authorized cannabis retailer. 2018, c. 12, Sched. 1, s. 7 (1).
Distribution
(2) No person shall distribute cannabis that is sold, or that is intended to be sold, other than by an authorized cannabis retailer. 2018, c. 12, Sched. 1, s. 7 (2).
8One of the purposes of the CCA is to deter illicit activities4. This includes making it an offence under section 13(1) of the CCA for a landlord to knowingly permit the use of a premises for an activity prohibited under section 6 of the Act. Section 13(1) of the CCA states:
Landlords
13 (1) No person shall knowingly permit a premise of which he or she is a landlord to be used in relation to activity prohibited by Section 6.
9The word knowingly makes this a mens rea offence(R. v. 10956391 Canada Inc. (5 December 2022), Toronto 19/343357, 19/343760, 19/34431; 21/21300048 (Ont Prov Ct), at para 11; and Toronto (City) v. 2694605 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONCJ 725, at para 22), and pursuant to section 13(2) of the CCA, if the offence is proven beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant may raise a defence that they took reasonable measures to prevent the unlawful activity. The section 13(2) states:
Defence
(2) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the defendant took reasonable measures to prevent the activity.
10The reasonable measures defence is a lower standard than that of due diligence (R. v. 10956391 Canada Inc. (5 December 2022), Toronto 19/343357, 19/343760, 19/34431; 21/21300048 (Ont Prov Ct), at para 19; R. v. Todos Distribution Inc. [2024] O.J. No. 6291; Toronto (City) v. 2694605 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONCJ 725, at para 25, 31-36; and per the unreported endorsement of Justice Pomerance in Toronto (City) v. 2694605 Ontario Inc. (1 April 2025), Toronto COA-24-OM-0199 (Ont. C.A.)), where the defendant, as a pre-condition of using this defence, must prove they took steps that were “…objectively reasonable, and the reasonableness of those steps must be assessed in light of the circumstances known to the accused at the time…” (R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33, at para 104).
EXHIBITS
11The court received a total of 19 documents which were made exhibits on consent. A full list of exhibits is attached as Appendix A.
AGREE STATEMENT OF FACTS
12In accordance with section 46(4) of the POA, an Agreed Statement of Facts (the “ASF”) was presented to the court and entered as Exhibit 1 on consent. The facts contained therein were read into the record by the prosecutor, with no objection or challenge raised by the defence.
13Exhibit 1 is attached as Appendix B, and the agreed facts stated in this exhibit specific to the elements of the offence are as follows:
A license to operate as an authorized cannabis dealer has never been issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to “Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel” or the “Medicine Wheel” for the operation of the business or establishment operating at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto.
The property at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto, is owned by Autumn Park Queen Britain Ltd.
The Notice of Contravention was issued to the property owner and mailed out by registered mail on March 13, 2024, to 8830 Jane St Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2M9. It was delivered to and received by the property owner on March 18, 2024.
On April 23, 2024, MLS officers observed the business open and operating at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto where a search warrant of the premise was executed. Municipal Licence and Standards and Toronto Police officers entered the business by way of an open door and observed cannabis and cannabis products were on display and readily for sale to the public and on display.
During the inspection, MLS and Toronto Police officers seized the following items:
a. $2045.00 CON Currency
b. 143,883 grams of Cannabis
- At the completion of the investigation, a notice of immediate closure order was issued, posted on the front door, and entry was barred pursuant to the Cannabis Control Act.
DEFENCE CHALLENGE TO THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
14During submissions, the defence argued that while it agrees with Statement 5 of ASF5, it is not evidence and as a result, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
15In support of its position, the defence argued that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the identity of the corporation, organization, entity or partnership, that was operating the unlicensed cannabis dispensary at the location on April 23, 2024. Further, there is no proof that the tenant, 1000192362 Ontario Inc. of 213A Queen Street East, Toronto6, was operating the unlicensed cannabis retail store, as “Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel” or “Medicine Wheel”.
16The defence argument was based on evidence adduced through BEO Capizzo and Ms. Marrese’s testimony and Exhibit 7.7
17During cross examination of the prosecution’s only witness, BEO Capizzo, the defence adduced viva voce evidence that no search8 was conducted to:
i. Determine if the defendant, Autumn Park Queen Britain LTD., operated under the name “Medicine Wheel”
ii. Identify the name of an entity or corporation operating under a trade name of “Medicine Wheel”
iii. Identify the name of any entity or corporation carrying on business under a trade name of “Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel.”
18The defence further adduced evidence under cross-examination that the prosecution’s sole witness had no information regarding “who” was operating the unlicensed cannabis retail store under the name “Medicine Wheel”.
19During examination-in-chief, when asked if she knew if her tenant, 1000192362 Ontario Inc., ever carried on business under the name “Medicine Wheel” or “Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel”, Ms. Marrese replied, “no” [emphasis added].
20Exhibit 7 is a certified letter from the Deputy Registrar of the AGCO. This letter confirms that on April 23, 2024, there was not a Cannabis Retail Operator Licence or Cannabis Retail Store Authorization in effect for Autumn Park Queen Britain LTD. o/a Medicine Wheel, at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto, Ontario. The defence argued that all the letter “proves is there was no retail licence for the operation of a cannabis dispensary by the defendant, Autumn Park.”
ANALYSES OF THE DEFENCE CHALLENGE TO THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. BEO Capizzo’s Testimony
21The court finds that BEO Capizzo’s testimony that no (business) search was conducted to identify the entity behind the unlicensed dispensary at the location and on the date in question is not relevant. The charge before the court is under section 13(1) of the CCA, not section 6 of the CCA. Therefore, the onus is not on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt the identity of an entity, corporation, organization, partnership or who (as in a person) is behind the unlicensed cannabis dispensary operating at a premises on the date of the alleged offence. Rather, the onus is on the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the landlord knowingly permitted the premise to be used in relation to activity prohibited by Section 6 of the CCA.
2. No Evidence Tenant (1000192362 Ontario Inc.) was Operating as Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel Medicine Wheel
22The court does not accept the defendant’s testimony that she did not know if her tenant, 1000192362 Ontario Inc., ever carried on a business under the name Medicine Wheel or Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel for the following reasons:
Exhibits 12, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19 tendered by the defence are emails with letters attached from the defendant and addressed to 1000192362 Ontario Inc., o/a Medicine Wheel at 213A Queen Street East Toronto, Attn Krystal Hughes [emphasis added]. The defendant testified during examination-in-chief that she wrote these letters, and her testimony was consistent under cross-examination; and
The defendant testified during examination-in-chief and cross examination that she was informed there were 14 other stores in the name of “Medicine Wheel” operated by this numbered company. She further testified that it was because there were 14 other stores operated by 1000192362 Ontario Inc. that she “thought it was ok to lease to them with no licence”.
23Based on exhibits 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19 and the defendant’s testimony that she entered to the lease with 1000192362 Ontario Inc., because Medicine Wheel had 14 other stores operated by the same Ontario numbered company, the defence must have accepted that the tenant of the premises in question, 1000192362 Ontario Inc., was operating as Medicine Wheel, before, on, and after the date of the alleged offence9.
24The court finds that the defence not only contradicted its own evidence, but its argument that there is no evidence that 1000192362 Ontario Inc., was operating an unlicenced cannabis dispensary under the name Medicine Wheel at the location in question on April 23, 2024, and that this would somehow substantiate the defence argument that Statement 5 of the ASF is not evidence, simply defies reason.
3. Exhibit 7 and Statement 5 of the ASF
25The court agrees that Exhibit 7 is evidence that Autumn Park Queen Britan LTD. was not a licenced or authorized cannabis retailer at the location and on the date in question. However, the court finds this is not relevant and the court has not considered Exhibit 7 as evidence to prove (or disprove) the facts as stated in Exhibit 1. This is because the defence argument that Statement 5 of the ASF is not evidence is simply not accepted by the Court.
26Similar to the principles embedded in section 655 of the Criminal Code, an agreed statement of fact pursuant to section 46(4) of the POA, once presented and submitted to the court on consent, constitutes a formal admission between the parties that a fact (or facts) therein is true (R. v. Korski, 2009 MBCA 37), and dispenses with the need to prove the fact or facts (R. v. Eliasson, 2020 ABCA 446; R. v. Stennett, 2021 ONCA 258).
27As stated in R. v. Baksh, 2005 CanLII 24918 (ON SC), at para 84:
An admission validly made in the context of s.655 of the Code is an acknowledgement that some fact alleged by the prosecution is true. Such an admission dispenses with proof of that fact by testimony or ordinary exhibit and the accused is not entitled to set up competing contradictory evidence in an attempt to disprove the judicial or formal admission. In other words, the formal admission is conclusive of the admitted fact.
28Furthermore, once admitted, an ASF is not open to challenge or contradiction without leave from the court, or via a mutually agreed to amendment to the statement of facts entered (R. v. Falconer, 2016 NSCA 22; R. v. Prince, 2017 BCSC 2642; R. v. Eliasson, 2020 ABCA 446; Champoux v. Jefremova, 2021 ONCA 92, at para 34; R. v. Stennett, 2021 ONCA 258).
29This court did not receive an application from the defence to withdraw Statement 5 of the ASF, nor did the court receive an amended Statement 5, or an amended ASF in entirety, on consent by both parties.
COURT’S FINDING OF THE DEFENCE CHALLENGE TO THE AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
30Statement 5 of the ASF was entered as part of Exhibit 1 on consent and is therefore a formal admission that a license to operate as an authorized cannabis dealer has never been issued by the AGCO to “Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel” or the “Medicine Wheel” for the operation of the business or establishment operating at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto.
31The court finds there is no merit to the defence arguments that the Statement 5 of the ASF is not evidence, is unproven, and that the prosecution therefore failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, the court has not considered any evidence tendered at trial that proves (or disproves) any facts as presented in Exhibit 1. An ASF is binding on the parties and the trier of fact (R. v. Baksh, 2005 CanLII 24918 (ON SC); R. v. Stennett, 2021 ONCA 258) and is “not like other pieces of evidence led at trial that a judge can weigh at their discretion” (Champoux v. Jefremova, 2021 ONCA 92, at para 34).
ADDITIONAL FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
32The court received a substantial amount of additional material and viva voce evidence not in dispute.
1. 2023 Lease for 213A Queen Street East, Toronto
33Additional facts not in dispute were established through the testimony of Ms. Marrese and the defence Exhibit 11, as follows:
i. Ms. Marrese testified that the property located at 213A Queen Street East is a commercial/residential property with two commercial store-fronts at street level and residential units/apartments above.
ii. On November 27, 2023, the defendant entered into a commercial lease agreement (the lease) with ‘Krystal Hughes'10 on behalf of 1000192362 Ontario Inc. (the lessee/tenant) for the store-front property located at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto.
iii. The signed lease was made Exhibit 11 on consent. Clause 2 of the negotiated signed lease states the premises will be used as a cannabis and natural healing store [emphasis added]
iv. The defendant testified she authorized amendments to clause 8.00 and clause 12.01 of the lease agreement.
v. Clause 8.00 – Use of Leased Premise – was struck out in its entirety. It originally stipulated (amongst other things):
“…the premises be used only for the purpose of a cannabis and natural healing store, provided the Tenant first obtain proper operations licences from required governmental authorities having jurisdiction thereof.”
vi. In place of clause 8.00, the following statement was inserted and initialed with “NM”11:
“Tenant not required to follow Cannabis Act regarding permits and licenses due to Indigenous Status.”
vii. Clause 12.01 – Government and Insurance Underwriter’s Regulation – was also struck in its entirety. It originally stipulated (amongst other things):
“The Tenant at the Tenant’s cost, will comply with the applicable requirements of all municipal, provincial, federal and other governmental authorities now in force or which may hereafter be in force pertaining to the Tenant’s occupancy or use of the Leased Premises and will observe in the occupancy and use of the Leased Premises all municipal by laws and provincial and federal statutes and regulations now in force or which may hereafter be in force…”
viii. In place of 12.01, the following statement was inserted and initialled with “NM”:
“Tenant not required to follow Cannabis Act regarding permits and licenses due to Indigenous Status.”
34As per Exhibit 11, the tenant, 1000192362 Ontario Inc., took possession of the store-front premises located at 213A Queen Street East Toronto on December 1, 2023, and with a five-year lease term.
35Ms. Marrese further testified during examination-in-chief and under cross examination:
She knew the premises would be used for selling cannabis, and was informed there were 14 other stores operating as the “Medicine Wheel” under this number company at the time the lease was negotiated and signed.
She knew that the tenant was not licenced as cannabis retailer.
She authorized the striking of clauses 8.00 and 12.01 because she was informed that the tenant is not required to follow the CCA due to the tenant’s Indigenous status.
She did not make an inquires if there was an exception under the law12 due to indigenous status.
She did not seek any legal advice on the Indigenous status and the CCA, nor did she seek any legal advice regarding the amendments to the lease that she authorized before signing.
2. The Notice of Contravention
36As per the agreed statement of facts, the notice of contravention was sent to and received by the defendant on March 18, 2024. The content of the notice was not included in the ASF, and the notice was made Exhibit 4 on consent.
37The court reviewed and considered the information contained in the document, and the prosecution’s witness summarized the details of the notice on the record during examination-in-chief. The content of the notice was not contested by the defence, and is summarized as follows:
i. The notice informs the property owner, Autumn Park Inc.13 that “…an investigation into the activities [at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto], revealed business activities consistent with the sale of cannabis at the property, with the business operating under the name "Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel" (the "Medicine Wheel”)”.
ii. It informs the defendant that according to AGCO records, “there is no valid authorized cannabis retailer license issued to the Medicine Wheel and/or for the premises at 213A Queen Street East, contrary to section 6 of the CCA”.
iii. The notice outlined the defendant’s responsibilities and obligations as a landlord under the CCA, the potential consequences for not taking reasonable steps to prevent to activity including the penalties for conviction(s) under sections 13(1) andsection 6 of the CCA.
iv. The notice also addresses claims made by Medicine Wheel that it is entitled to operate outside of the province’s cannabis law by informing the defendant that “…both property and the Medicine Wheel business remains subject to all applicable provincial laws, including the CCA.”
38The notice was issued and signed by Wes Neal, Manager, Investigation Service, Municipal Licensing and Standards, City of Toronto and it encouraged the defendant to contact him or BEO Capizzo for information on how to bring the property in question into compliance. The notice includes contact information for both City of Toronto representatives listed, including their respective email address and phone number.
39The court did not receive any evidence or testimony that the defendant contacted BEO Capizzo by phone or email regarding the notice or for any information on how to bring the property in compliance.
40While the defendant testified that she left a voicemail for Wes Neal on March 18, 2024, informing him she received the notice and asking him to call her, the court did not receive any evidence to support this assertion.
3) Signage
41Fifteen (15) photographs taken before and during the execution of the search warrant on April 23, 2024. These photos were made Exhibit 2 on consent. Of note is Photo #1, which captures the exterior store front of 213A Queen Street East in the City of Toronto. This photo captures an electronic “Open” sign posted in the transom window above the front door, and shows a large sign, spanning the entire exterior store front, with the operating name “Mississauga of the Credit Medicine Wheel”.
42The photo also depicts a poster covering the entire front window advertising the same.
4. Defendant’s Email to Wes Neal District Manager, Municipal Licensing and Standards, City of Toronto and Letter to Tenant, and the March 29, 2024, phone call
43In addition to the defendant testifying she left a voicemail for Wes Neal on March 18, 2024, she testified that she emailed him on the same day. The email was made Exhibit 13, on consent. As per the ASF, the email was received by Wes Neal on March 18, 202414.
44The email states “I have been advised the tenant are indigenous and do not require a license. Please feel free to call me” [emphasis added]. Ms. Marrese testified she wrote to Wes Neal because she wanted more information, but admitted the email does not convey this.
45Ms. Marrese further testified that she believes she called and left another voicemail for Wes Neal but was unable to provide a date the message was left or the content or nature of the voicemail.
46The defendant also testified to sending an email and attached letter dated March 18, 2024, addressed to 1000192362 o/a Medicine Wheel at the address in question, Attn Krystal Hughes. This document was made Exhibit 12 on consent, and it informs the tenant that the defendant received a letter from the City of Toronto regarding an investigation involving the sale of cannabis at the premises in question. The letter informs the tenant that the defendant will be “…seeking direct clarification from the City of Toronto….to determine the legal standing of this activity… until official confirmation is received…ongoing cannabis-related activities remain under review.” It is unknown what is meant by review, including by whom and for what purpose in this letter.
47On March 29, 2024, the defendant received a call from Wes Neal. She testified that during the call she explained “they told [her] they have indigenous status and have legal rights”15. Ms. Marrese testified the call was brief and that after speaking with Wes Neal, she believed that the tenant’s indigenous status did not matter, and that the operation was not legal.
48The defendant wrote a series of letters addressed to the tenant following her conversation with Wes Neal on March 29, 2024.
PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
49The ASF establishes:
the defendant as the owner of the premises in question on the date of the alleged offence;
“Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel” or “Medicine Wheel” was never licenced by the AGCO to operate as an authorized cannabis dealer at the premises and on the date in question;
This unauthorized cannabis dispensary was open to the public and operating on the date of the alleged offence, with cannabis products on display, readily for sale to the public; and
A significant amount of cannabis and currency were seized by city officials and Toronto Police following the execution of the search warrant at the location and on the date in question, including $2045.00 CAN currency and 143,883 grams of cannabis.
50Photo evidence taken on the date of the alleged offence was not challenged by the defence, and clearly shows the exterior store front of 213A Queen Street East, Toronto, with the large signage spanning across the store front with the operating name, “Mississauga of the Credit Medicine Wheel” and a poster in the window stating same.
51With respect to the mens rea element of the offence – knowingly permitting the unlawful activity” – as stated in R. v. 10956391 Canada Inc. (5 December 2022), Toronto 19/343357, 19/343760, 19/34431; 21/21300048 (Ont Prov Ct), at para 13:
The mens rea element need not be explicit, nor is the prosecution required to demonstrate desire on the part of the defendant to commit the prohibited act. [Emphasis added]
In R. v. Briscoe, 2010 SCC 13, [201 O] 1 S.C.R. 411, the court found at para 16 that the mens rea component in that case had two components, intent and knowledge. In that case, intent should not be equated with desire and it is not required that the defendant desired the offences be successfully committed, nor that "the aider or abettor subjectively approve of or desire" the offence.
52While there is no evidence the defendant desired to commit the offence, based on the overwhelming evidence the court accepts, the court finds the defendant willfully blind to the law16, and consequently, knowingly permitted the premises to be used for the unauthorized sale of cannabis to the public, as evidenced by the defendant’s own testimony and exhibits 11 and 12.
53As of March 18, 2024, the defendant received the Notice of Contravention that the premises in question was being used for activities consistent with the unauthorized sale of cannabis, contrary to section 6 of the CCA. While there is no statutory requirement under the CCA for a notice of contravention to be issued, “…its sole and real purpose is to establish the element of knowledge on the part of the defendant…” (R. v. 10956391 Canada Inc. (5 December 2022), Toronto 19/343357, 19/343760, 19/34431; 21/21300048 (Ont Prov Ct), at para 26).
54In totality of the evidence accepted and considered by the court, the court is satisfied that all elements of the offence have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the court must determine the if the defendant took reasonable steps to prevent the activity once she accepted the tenant was acting outside the law.
DEFENCE
55The defence argued that the defendant didn’t ignore the situation and took reasonable steps to prevent the illegal activity from continuing at the premises in question by writing letters addressed to the tenant, following her phone call with Wes Neal on March 29, 2024. The letters were entered as exhibits 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19, and were dated March 29, 2024, April 9, 2024, April 15, 2024, April 30, 2024, and May 7, 2024, respectively17.
56Exhibit 14 is the defendant’s March 29, 2024, letter addressed to 1000192362 o/a Medicine Wheel at the address in question, Attn Krystal Hughes. It states: “Mr. Neal has confirmed that regardless of Indigenous status any individual or entity engaging in the sale of cannabis in Ontario is required to hold a valid provincial license issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario (AGCO). [The defendant is] left with no choice but to initiate termination of the lease agreement”. In the letter, the defendant requests the tenant “to cease operations immediately.” This letter does not include any information on what initiating termination of the lease means, not did the defendant testify to any steps she took to initiate the termination of the lease.
57Exhibit 15 is the defendant’s April 9, 2024, letter addressed to 1000192362 o/a Medicine Wheel at the address in question, Attn Krystal Hughes. It states: “I must reiterate that, based on current information, the sale of cannabis without a valid license remains unlawful in Ontario, regardless of Indigenous status-pending clarification through legal counsel. I am currently consulting with legal professionals, and until this matter is clarified l must insist that you cease all cannabis-related sales and activities on the premises immediately.”
58The defendant never testified what she meant by “pending clarification through legal counsel”. However, she did testify she called a lawyer for advice on April 9, 2024, but did not hear back from the lawyer until April 15, 2024. As a result of her phone conversation with her lawyer on April 15, 2024, she testified that she prepared a letter to her tenant dated April 15, 2024.
59Exhibit 17 is the defendant’s April 15, 2024, letter addressed to 1000192362 o/a Medicine Wheel at the address in question, Attn Krystal Hughes. It states: “…my sources indicate… the unlawful operation continues. This is a serious breach of the lease terms and of municipal and provincial laws governing cannabis retail. This situation has persisted for far too long, with complete disregard for the terms of the lease and the legal requirements attached to the use of the property. Accordingly, the lease is hereby terminated effective immediately and you are required to vacate the premises without delay.” [emphasis added]
60The defendant did not testify to any steps taken to terminate the lease, nor did the court receive any evidence of a terminated lease or documentation that termination was initiated beyond the statements made in the exhibits. Ms. Marrese testified however, that she went on vacation on April 23, 2024, hoping that “they would leave” before she returned on April 29, 2025.
61Ms. Marrese testified that exhibits 14, 15 and 1718 were hand delivered by an agent on her behalf “to the people in the premises at some point on the day the letters were dated.” The defendant clarified during cross-examination that people in the premises meant “people behind the counter”. There was no evidence that the letters were delivered, received, and if received, by whom; and the defendant testified she never received any communication or response to her letters from the tenant (Krystal Hughes) in writing or otherwise.
62Prosecution argued the court must consider case law that illustrates what has been considered and upheld by the courts as reasonable steps in cases where a landlord has been charged with a section 13(1) offence under the CCA.
63The cases submitted for the court’s consideration include Java Investments v. 1000225661 Ontario Inc. et al., 2025 ONSC 194; R. v. Todos Distribution Inc., [2024] O.J. No. 6291, Toronto (City) v. 2694605 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONCJ 725; and the unreported endorsement of Justice Pomerance in Toronto (City) v. 2694605 Ontario Inc. (1 April 2025), Toronto COA-24-OM-0199 (Ont. C.A.)
64These cases identify reasonable steps to include taking immediately action by contacting cannabis enforcement officer after receiving a notice of contravention, changing locks to the premises, barring entry to the premises, seeking legal advice, and taking steps to evict the tenant.
65When asked by the prosecution on cross-examination about the steps taken to address the contravention, the defendant testified she,
i. Did not contact a locksmith, did not change the locks and did not to attempt to bar entry to the premises in question.
ii. Did not visit or attend the property at any time, did not send any employee to attend the property, and at not attempt to gain access or entry to the premises in question at anytime;
iii. Did not know if “they”19 were still selling cannabis at the premises in question; and
iv. Did not call the police to assist with enforcement.
66The defendant testified that she did not change the locks because she was told by the store manager that “they have rights and would just break the windows and get in that way”20. She testified she was concerned about her property and the safety of the residence as a result, and so she did not attempt to change locks. She further testified that she didn’t call the police because “they were not threatening her.”
67Prosecution argued that apart from leaving a voicemail(s) for Wes Neal (though the content unknown) and writing letters, based on her own testimony, the defendant, as a landlord, did not take any reasonable steps in circumstances to prevent the unlaw activities from taking place at premises and on date in question. And further, the prosecution argued there is no evidence that the letters written by the defendant were delivered and received by the tenant (or Krystal Hughes) given no affidavit of service presented to the court.
ANALYSIS
68The defence available for landlord charged under section 13(1) of the CCA, is a reasonable measures defence, not due diligence. The lower standard only requires the defendant to demonstrate reasonable measures or steps were taken to prevent the activity - not all measures. (R. v. 10956391 Canada Inc. (5 December 2022), Toronto 19/343357, 343760, 34431; 21/21300048 (Ont Prov Ct), at para 19; R. v. Todos Distribution Inc. [2024] O.J. No. 6291; Toronto (City) v. 2694605 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONCJ 725, at para 25 and 35) [emphasis added].
69As in R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33 at para 104:
[Reasonable steps] has both objective and subjective dimensions: the accused must take steps that are objectively reasonable, and the reasonableness of those steps must be assessed in light of the circumstances known to the accused at the time.
70While the court received cases which consider and affirm what may constitute reasonable steps for such an offence, it still remains open to the presiding justice to find that the steps taken to prevent the activity were reasonable given known circumstances of the matter (unreported endorsement of Justice Pomerance in Toronto (City) v. 2694605 Ontario Inc. (1 April 2025), Toronto COA-24-OM-0199 (Ont. C.A.).
71In this matter, the circumstances known to the defendant include knowing her tenant was never licensed or authorized to sell cannabis and that her tenant would be using the premises for the public sale of cannabis from the start of lease negotiation. The defendant never informed herself of the law21 and never sought legal advice before amending and signing the lease.
72Through her own testimony and evidence, the defendant believe that the tenant’s indigenous status exempted them from the law22, despite the notice of contravention informing her otherwise. She continued to hold this belief until a March 29, 2024, phone call with Wes Neal, 11 days after she received the notice of contravention.
73The only steps the defendant took following this phone call was to prepare three letters dated March 29, 2024, April 9, 2024, April 15, 2024, and make a phone call to her lawyer, before taking vacation on April 23, 2024, when the charge was laid.
74While the three letters include statements that the tenant is to cease the sale of cannabis and that the termination of the lease was either initiated or completed, there is no evidence before this court that the defendant took any steps to terminate the lease. The court finds these are simply statements and statements do not constitute reasonable steps.
75Furthermore, the court agrees with the prosecution, that there is no evidence that the tenant received these letters. There is no affidavit of service presented to the court, no witness presented to testify to the delivery of each letter or to whom each letter was delivered to.
76The fact that the defendant testified she did not seek legal advice until April 15, 2024, did not change the locks, did not bar the entry, did not visit the premises, didn’t know if cannabis was still being sold, did not call the police for assistance with enforcement, did not testify to any steps she took to terminate the lease, but instead went on vacation hoping “they would leave” before she returned, demonstrates to this court that the defendant did not take the matter seriously.
77Furthermore, the court does not accept that the defendant did not change the locks because she was told they would just break the window to gain entry, and she was worried about the safety of her property and the residential tenants. While at the same time she testified she didn’t call the police because she was not threatened. This testimony simply does not make sense.
78The court also does not accept that the defendant did not know if the tenant was still selling cannabis given she also testified to writing letters instructing the tenant to cease the sale of cannabis.
79Throughout the trial, there were many examples of inconsistencies in the defendant’s own testimony and the defence material submitted including what the defendant knew, when she knew, how she knew, what she did or did not do. The inconsistencies raise serious concerns regarding credibility.
CONCLUSION
80In this matter, the defence hinges on three letters that may, or may not, have been sent and/or received by the tenant of the premises in question between March 29, 2024 and April 15, 2024, and content of these letters simply amount to defendant telling the tenant to cease the sale of cannabis.
81The court finds that these three letters do not meet the test of both objective and subjective dimensions of the defence of reasonable steps, and therefore, the court finds the defendant, Autumn Park Queen Britian LTD., guilty and a conviction will register.
Released: November 24, 2025
Signed: Justice of the Peace J. Veenboer
APPENDIX A
DATE: November 24, 2025
COURT FILE No.: TORONTO
4863-999-24-243002631
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
— AND —
AUTUMN PARK QUEEN BRITIAN LTD.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 – Agreed Statement of Facts
Exhibit 2 – Fifteen (15) Photographs (April 23, 2024)
Exhibit 3 – Notice of Immediate Closure (April 23, 2024)
Exhibit 4 – Notice of Contravention (March 13, 2024)
Exhibit 5 - Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery Certified Documents (includes certified Land Parcel Registry and a Tax Assessment Roll)
Exhibit 6 – Corporate Profile (Autumn Park Queen Britian LTD.)
Exhibit 7 – Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario Letter
Exhibit 8 – Evidence Act Notice
Exhibit 9 – Email and Draft Lease Agreement (November 25, 2023)
Exhibit 10 – Email dated November 27, 2023
Exhibit 11 – Email and signed Lease Agreement (dated November 27, 2023)
Exhibit 12 – Email (cover) and letter from the defendant addressed to 1000192362 Ontario Inc., o/a Medicine Wheel 213A Queen Street East Toronto Attn: Krystal Hughes, dated March 18, 2024
Exhibit 13 – Email to Mr. Neal dated March 18, 2024
Exhibit 14 – Email (cover) and letter from the defendant addressed to 1000192362 Ontario Inc., o/s Medicine Wheel 213A Queen Street East Toronto Attn Krystal Hughes, dated March 29, 2024
Exhibit 15 – Email (cover) and letter from the defendant addressed to 1000192362 Ontario Inc., o/s Medicine Wheel 213A Queen Street East Toronto Attn Krystal Hughes, dated April 9, 2024
Exhibit 16 – Status and ID card for Krystal Hughes
Exhibit 17 – Email (cover) and letter from the defendant addressed to 1000192362 Ontario Inc., o/s Medicine Wheel 213A Queen Street East Toronto Attn Krystal Hughes, dated April 15, 2024
Exhibit 18 – Email (cover) and letter from the defendant addressed to 1000192362 Ontario Inc., o/s Medicine Wheel 213A Queen Street East Toronto, Attn Krystal Hughes, dated April 30, 2024
Exhibit 19 – Email (cover) and letter from the defendant addressed to 1000192362 Ontario Inc., o/s Medicine Wheel 213A Queen Street East Toronto, Attn Krystal Hughes, dated May 7, 2024
APPENDIX B
DATE: November 24, 2025
COURT FILE No.: TORONTO
4863-999-24-243002631
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
— AND —
AUTUMN PARK QUEEN BRITIAN LTD.
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
Cannabis has only been legally available for sale in Canada since October 2018.
Prior to the coming into force of the Cannabis Act, S.C. 2018, c. 16, cannabis and its derivatives were prohibited substances under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c. 19 and the possession, sale or distribution of cannabis and cannabis products and derivatives was a criminal offence.
The lawful sale of cannabis in the Province of Ontario was established with the enactment of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, which came into force on October 17, 2018.
Only those establishments that possessed a licence issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario were authorized to sell cannabis in the Province of Ontario.
A license to operate as an authorized cannabis dealer has never been issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to “Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel” or the “Medicine Wheel” for the operation of the business or establishment operating at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto.
The property at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto, is owned by Autumn Park Queen Britain Ltd.
Autumn Park Queen Britain Ltd. is an Active Ontario corporation with a Registered or Head Office Address at 16535 10th Concession, Schomberg, Ontario, L0G 1T0.
The Notice of Contravention was issued to the property owner and mailed out by registered mail on March 13, 2024, to 8830 Jane St Vaughan, Ontario, L4K 2M9. It was delivered to and received by the property owner on March 18, 2024.
The email was sent on March 18, 2024, on behalf of the property owner to Mr. Wes Neal, District Manager, Municipal Licensing and Standards, Investigation Services, Cannabis Enforcement Unit, and was received by Mr. Neal on the same date.
On April 23, 2024, MLS officers observed the business open and operating at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto where a search warrant of the premise was executed. Municipal Licence and Standards and Toronto Police officers entered the business by way of an open door and observed cannabis and cannabis products were on display and readily for sale to the public and on display.
Municipal License and Standards Inspector Funes took 15 photographs.
During the inspection, MLS and Toronto Police officers seized the following items:
a. $2045.00 CON Currency
b. 143,883 grams of Cannabis.
- At the completion of the investigation, a notice of immediate closure order was issued, posted on the front door, and entry was barred pursuant to the Cannabis Control Act.
Footnotes
- The trial was originally scheduled three days (July 15, 16 & 17, 2025), but was completed in one day (July 15, 2025)
- As per Exhibit 1 – Agreed Statement of Facts, Exhibit 5 - Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery Certified Documents (includes certified Land Parcel Registry and a Tax Assessment Roll), Exhibit 6 - Corporate Profile (Autumn Park Queen Britian LTD.); and the defendant’s testimony. Present date is the date of trial.
- Exhibit 1
- CCA, Section 1: Purposes
- Statement 5: A license to operate as an authorized cannabis dealer has never been issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario to “Mississaugas of the Credit Medicine Wheel” or the “Medicine Wheel” for the operation of the business or establishment operating at 213A Queen Street East, Toronto
- Exhibit 11 – includes the signed lease agreement between the defendant and the tenant identified as 1000192362 Ontario Inc., represented by Krystal Hughes
- Exhibit 7 - Alcohol and Gaming Commission Letter
- The court infers the term “search” to mean a business search based on the context of cross-examination
- Exhibit 18 - Email (cover) and letter from the defendant addressed to 1000192362 Ontario Inc., o/s Medicine Wheel 213A Queen Street East Toronto, Attn Krystal Hughes and Exhibit 19 - Email (cover) and letter from the defendant addressed to 1000192362 Ontario Inc., o/s Medicine Wheel 213A Queen Street East Toronto, Attn Krystal Hughes, are dated April 30, 2024, and May 7, 2024, respectively, after the alleged offence date.
- The name ‘Krystal Hughes’ appears on the lease as the signature for the tenant via Docusign.
- Defendant testified that the initials “NM”, are her initials (Nina Marrese) authorizing the amendments to the lease. The amendments were also initialed with “KH”. The court infers the initials “KH” to be that of Krystal Hughes, who the defendant testified as the person signing the lease on behalf of 1000192362 Ontario Inc.
- The CCA.
- Exhibit 4 - Notice of Contravention (March 13, 2024) identified “Autumn Park Inc.” as the property owner based on a land title search conducted as testified to by BEO Capizzo and corroborated through Exhibit 5 - Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery Certified Documents (includes certified Land Parcel Registry and a Tax Assessment Roll). Exhibit 6 - Corporate Profile (Autumn Park Queen Britian LTD.) confirms a corporate name change from Autumn Park Inc. to Autumn Park Queen Britian LTD. which occurred August 4, 2021. The court is satisfied the Autumn Park Inc., is Autumn Park Queen Britian LTD.
- The content of the email was not included in Exhibit 1 - ASF
- By the term “they” the court infers the defendant means the tenant.
- The CCA.
- The court has not considered exhibits 18 and 19. These exhibits are dated after the offence date and the court finds they are therefore not relevant to assessing reasonable measures taken to prevent the illegal activity from continuing.
- The defendant testified that all letters (exhibits 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 19) were hand delivered by and agent to the “people in the premises”.
- By “they” the court infers the defendant was referring to the tenant of 213A Queen Street East Toronto
- The defendant testified the only person she spoke was “Ken Hughes” who the defendant identified as the tenant’s brother and the manager of the operations at premises in question.
- The CCA
- The CCA