CITATION: Toronto (City) v. First Gulf Inc., 2026 ONCJ 261

DATE: January 8, 2026

Offence No.: Offence No.: 2884200F

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

Provincial Offences Act (Part I)

B E T W E E N :

CITY OF TORONTO

— AND —

FIRST GULF INC.

Courtroom: S5 Hearing Date: October 21, 2025 Decision Date: January 8,

APPEARANCES

J. Price appeared for the City of Toronto. B. Romano appeared for the defendant, First Gulf Inc.

REASONS FOR DECISION

W. LUKE J.P.:

INTRODUCTION

1First Gulf Inc. is charged as a corporate defendant with an offence under the City of Toronto Municipal Code (the Municipal Code), Chapter 591, section 2.3, relating to construction noise.

2The charge arises from events alleged to have occurred on October 29, 2024, at 601 Milner Avenue, Toronto. The allegation is that construction-related vehicles operated within the site and emitted clearly audible noise before 7:00 a.m., during prohibited hours.

3The prosecution is brought by the City of Toronto.

4For the reasons that follow, the Court finds the defendant guilty.

THE CHARGE AND APPLICABLE LAW

5Section 591-2.3 of the Municipal Code provides that no person shall emit, cause, or permit the emission of sound resulting from construction or the operation of construction equipment that is clearly audible at a point of reception during specified prohibited hours.

6The provision establishes an objective prohibition. The focus is on audibility during restricted hours, not on the necessity, reasonableness, or stage of construction activity.

7The central issues are whether construction equipment produced clearly audible sound before 7:00 a.m., and whether the defendant exercised due diligence to prevent the prohibited noise.

8A Noise Exemption Permit issued to First Gulf Inc. on July 3, 2024 (Exhibit 11) authorizes construction noise only between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. It does not authorize noise before 7:00 a.m.

9The offence is one of strict liability. Once the essential elements are proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant may avoid conviction only by establishing, on a balance of probabilities, that all reasonable care was exercised.

FACTUAL CONTEXT

10The property at 601 Milner Avenue is a large construction project involving an industrial building with loading docks and associated site activity. The surrounding area is primarily commercial and industrial.

11Following a complaint, municipal by-law officers attended the site early on the morning of October 29, 2024. They observed commercial trucks operating within the gated construction site prior to 7:00 a.m. and recorded photographs and video.

EXHIBITS

12The exhibits include:

• Exhibit 1: Notice under the Evidence Act dated March 10, 2025;
• Exhibits 2A-2H: Screenshots and photographs from a City-issued Samsung Galaxy S23 showing time-stamped images between 6:26 a.m. and 8:17 a.m.;
• Exhibits 3-7 and 9: Video recordings depicting truck movement, engine noise, and reversing alarms within the site prior to 7:00 a.m.;
• Exhibit 8: Driver’s license of an unidentified truck driver, not linked to a specific vehicle or employer;
• Exhibit 10: Ontario Corporate Profile Report confirming First Gulf Inc.;
• Exhibit 11: Noise Exemption Permit; and
• Exhibit 12: Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 591.

EVIDENCE

Officer Sekhon

13Officer Sekhon attended the site at approximately 6:26 a.m. The officer observed multiple commercial trucks operating inside the fenced construction site. The vehicles emitted audible engine noise and reversing alarms. Photographs and video were recorded using a City-issued device.

14Officer Sekhon later conducted a corporate search confirming First Gulf Inc. as the developer associated with the site and identified First Gulf signage at the site gate.

Officer James

15Officer James arrived shortly thereafter and remained on site until just before 7:00 a.m. The officer observed ongoing vehicle movement, engine idling, and reversing alarms within the construction site. The evidence was that the noise continued throughout the attendance and was consistent with active construction equipment operation.

Defence Witness: Mr. Costa

16Mr. Costa, the Health and Safety Manager for First Gulf Inc., testified regarding company policies prohibiting construction work before 7:00 a.m. The witness was not present on October 29, 2024, and the evidence addressed general procedures rather than the specific events in issue.

ANALYSIS

Credibility and Weight

17The officers’ evidence was direct, contemporaneous, and mutually consistent. It was corroborated by photographs, timestamp screenshots, and video recordings. Mr. Costa’s evidence was given honestly but was limited to general policy and did not address what occurred on the date in question.

18The Court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt as to the timing and accuracy of the officers’ observations. While the videos themselves do not display timestamps, the screenshots taken from the same recordings establish the relevant times.

Whether Prohibited Noise Occurred

19The videos and testimony establish that commercial trucks associated with the project were operating within the site before 7:00 a.m., producing engine noise and reversing alarms.

20Section 2.3 does not require that active building work be visibly underway. Vehicles and equipment integral to the construction project fall within the scope of the prohibition when clearly audible during restricted hours.

Corporate Responsibility

21Site signage, the Noise Exemption Permit, corporate records, and evidence of administrative contact identify First Gulf Inc. as the developer and entity in control of the site.

22Based on the totality of the evidence, including site control, signage, the permit documentation, and the observed activity within the gated premises, the Court is satisfied that the defendant permitted the operation of construction-related vehicles during prohibited hours.

Due Diligence

23The defendant relies on general company policies prohibiting work before 7:00 a.m.

24Due diligence requires effective systems of supervision, monitoring, and enforcement capable of preventing prohibited conduct. There is no evidence of measures addressing early vehicle access, idling, or enforcement on the morning in question.

25The defendant was aware of the permitted hours through the exemption permit. The Court is not satisfied that all reasonable care was exercised.

CONCLUSION

26On October 29, 2024, sound from the operation of construction equipment was clearly audible during a prohibited period at 601 Milner Avenue.

27First Gulf Inc., as the entity in control of the site, permitted the emission of that sound.

28The offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The due diligence defence has not been established.

29First Gulf Inc. is found guilty of the offence under Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 591, section 2.3.

PENALTY

30Having entered a finding of guilt, the Court now addresses penalty.

31In determining the appropriate penalty, the Court has considered the principles of deterrence, proportionality, and consistency applicable to regulatory offences.

32A fine in the amount of $800.00 is imposed, plus any applicable victim fine surcharge.

33A conviction is entered against the defendant.

34The standard time for payment is 15 days.

These are the reasons of the Court.