Toronto (City) v. 1000080350 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCJ 286
Ontario Court of Justice Provincial Offences Court
City of Toronto
-and-
1000080350 Ontario Inc.
Hearing and Release Date: January 8, 2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
W. LUKE J.P.:
(Ex Parte)
INTRODUCTION
1The defendant, 1000080350 Ontario Inc., is charged with two offences under the City of Toronto Municipal Code arising from an inspection conducted on May 9, 2025, at 1230 Danforth Avenue, Toronto.
2The allegations are that the defendant:
a. Count 1: Installed a sidewalk café, public parklet, or marketing display without a permit, contrary to Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 742, section 2.1A(1); and
b. Count 2: Carried on the business of an eating or drinking establishment without the required licence or endorsement, contrary to Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 545, section 545-2A(72).
3For the reasons that follow, I find the defendant guilty on both counts.
PRELIMINARY MATTERS
4The court confirmed that the summons was properly issued and served. The Affidavit of Service was reviewed and is complete. There is no indication that the summons was returned.
5Notice of this proceeding was posted both inside and outside the courtroom. A page was made for the defendant. No response was received.
6In these circumstances, the matter is properly before the court and may proceed ex parte pursuant to the Provincial Offences Act.
ARRAIGNMENT
7On behalf of the absent defendant, the court entered pleas of not guilty to both charges.
8The defendant remains presumed innocent unless and until the prosecution establishes each essential element of the offences beyond a reasonable doubt.
SUMMARY OF THE EVIDENCE
Officer Testimony
9The City called Officer Eugina Tassopoulos (#6352), an officer with Municipal Licensing and Standards.
10The officer testified that on May 9, 2025, at approximately 10:50 p.m., she attended 1230 Danforth Avenue following a referral from Toronto Public Health.
11Upon entering the premises operating as Vision Lounge, the officer identified herself to the person in charge. She observed patrons using hookah pipes, with food and beverages being prepared and served.
12The officer observed a kitchen area, a coffee and espresso station, refrigerators containing beverages and alcohol, a point-of-sale terminal, a DJ booth, and 17 hookah pipes, some actively in use with lit coals.
13Receipts obtained during the inspection confirmed the business name 1000080350 Ontario Inc. and the address of the premises.
14The officer testified that the establishment was operating concurrently as a hookah lounge and an eating or drinking establishment. She advised the person in charge that food and refreshments could not be served concurrently with hookah service under the applicable regulatory framework.
15No eating or drinking establishment licence was produced at the time of inspection. A liquor licence was later presented.
16Outside the premises, the officer observed a structure constructed of wood and cinder blocks extending beyond the property line and functioning as a sidewalk café. No sidewalk café permit was produced at the time of inspection.
17The officer’s notes were made contemporaneously, by hand, and remained in her custody. She testified that there were no deletions or alterations. I found the officer’s evidence clear, internally consistent, and corroborated by the documentary and photographic exhibits.
Documentary and Physical Exhibits
18The prosecution tendered certified true copies of the applicable by-laws, corporate profile documentation, notices pursuant to the Evidence Act, property line records, correspondence from Municipal Licensing and Standards, and 18 photographs depicting the exterior structure, interior layout, patrons, hookah equipment, and food and beverage service.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Count 1 – Chapter 742
Sidewalk Café Without Permit
19To establish the offence under Chapter 742, the prosecution must prove that the defendant installed or maintained a sidewalk café or similar structure on municipal property without a permit.
20The uncontroverted evidence establishes that a structure functioning as a sidewalk café was erected beyond the property line at 1230 Danforth Avenue on municipal property.
21The photographic evidence and property line records confirm that a permit was required. No permit was produced at the time of inspection.
22I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the essential elements of Count 1 have been proven.
Count 2 – Chapter 545
Unlicensed Eating or Drinking Establishment
23To obtain a conviction under Chapter 545, the prosecution must establish that the defendant carried on the business of an eating or drinking establishment without the required licence or endorsement.
24The officer’s testimony, corroborated by photographs and receipts, establishes that food and beverages were prepared, sold, and consumed on the premises.
25The defendant did not hold a valid eating or drinking establishment licence on the date of the offence. The later production of a liquor licence does not satisfy the licensing requirements of Chapter 545.
26I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the essential elements of Count 2 have been established.
27The evidence before the court is clear, consistent, and unchallenged. The prosecution has met its burden on both counts.
28I therefore find the defendant, 1000080350 Ontario Inc., guilty of:
a. installing a sidewalk café without a permit, contrary to Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 742, section 2.1A(1); and
b. operating an eating or drinking establishment without the required licence, contrary to Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 545, section 545-2A(72).
PENALTY
29In determining the appropriate penalty, I have considered the regulatory context of these offences, including the principles of deterrence, proportionality, and consistency.
Count 1 – Chapter 742
30The unauthorized installation of a sidewalk café provides a clear economic benefit through the expansion of usable commercial space. Regulatory penalties must not be treated as a cost of doing business. In this case, the evidence supports the conclusion that the defendant derived an economic benefit from the unauthorized structure.
31A fine in the amount of $4,000.00 is imposed for Count 1.
Count 2 – Chapter 545
32The defendant operated an eating or drinking establishment without obtaining the required licence or endorsement. No valid licence was produced at the time of inspection. Compliance with licensing requirements is fundamental to the regulatory scheme.
33A fine in the amount of $1,400.00 is imposed for Count 2.
CONCLUSION
34Convictions are entered on both counts.
35The total fine imposed is $5,400.00, plus any applicable victim fine surcharge.
36The standard time for payment is 15 days.