ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
— AND —
10956392 CANADA INC.
Before Justice of the Peace Mohammed Brihmi
Heard on January 21 and 22, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 9, 2026
M. Schlesinger counsel for the prosecution
N. Gerry counsel for the defendant
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BRIHMI:
INTRODUCTION
1The corporate defendant, 10956392 Canada Inc. has owned the property located at 392 Bloor Street West, Toronto, since October 2, 2018. The premises were leased to the tenant, Eric Lauzon. The City of Toronto Municipal Licensing and Standards Division (MLS), which is designated to enforce the Cannabis Control Act 2017, had concerns with this property, as it is alleged that it was being used to sell unauthorized cannabis products since April 13, 2019.
2The defendant was charged on or about January 17, 2024, with one count of being the landlord of the premises located at 932 Bloor Street West, in the City of Toronto, and knowingly permitted 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 as amended (the “CCA” or the “Act”), contrary to section 13(1) of the Act.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
Purposes of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017
3Purposes: The purposes of this Act are,
(a) to establish prohibitions relating to the sale, distribution, purchase, possession, cultivation, propagation and harvesting of cannabis in order to,
(i) protect public health and safety,
(ii) protect youth and restrict their access to cannabis, and
(iii) ensure the sale of cannabis in accordance with the Ontario Cannabis Retail Corporation Act, 2017, and the Cannabis Licence Act, 2018;
4Unlawful sale, distribution
Sale
6 (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).
Landlords
13 (1) No person shall knowingly permit a premises of which he or she is a landlord to be used in relation to an activity prohibited by section 6.
Defence
(2) It is a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the defendant took reasonable measures to prevent the activity.
Definition
(3) In this section,
“landlord” means, in respect of a premises, a person who is a lessor, owner or person permitting the occupation of the premises, and includes an owner of a premises that has not been vacated by the tenant despite the expiry of the tenant’s lease or right of occupation.
5Definition of reasonable steps: R v Barton, 2019 SCC 33. Para 104 and 106. It provided guidance as to what constitutes “reasonable steps” “…It 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…”
EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION’S WITNESS
The Court heard from Officer Capizzo, the Supervisor of the Cannabis Enforcement Team since January 2022. His testimony could be encapsulated as follows:
6Officer Capizzo testified that the Corporation 10956392 Canada Inc. is the landlord of the property located at 932 Bloor St West.
7After two notices of contravention were sent to the corporation at 17 and 20 Capreol Court on October 20 and October 23, 2023, as the property was not licensed by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission on January 17, 2024, to sell cannabis, he told the Court that he received two emails from Counsel Gerry on behalf of the defendant corporation on October 30 and 31, 2023. The emails indicate that they were taking measures to prevent the activity at 932 Bloor St. West and that they had changed the locks twice on October 20 and 27, 2023, on the tenant since receiving the latest notice of contravention.
8The emails included the Statement of Claim filed at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice between the defendant corporation and Eric Lauzon (tenant) that was dated March 17, 2023.
9Further, Officer Capizzo testified that on Wednesday, January 17, 2024, he attended with members of his team and Toronto police officers from 14 division with a Search Warrant for the “CAFÉ” dispensary located at 932 Bloor St. West that was open and operating. They found four staff members; two of them were behind the counter; Cannabis products were visible, including dry cannabis, edible products, and cash registers. Officer Capizzo told me that photos and video were taken. Additionally, he testified that they had seized cash, the police bags were recorded, and he signed them.
10Among the evidence, photos were taken and introduced as an exhibit. They include twenty-two photos of cannabis products on the shelves, packaged dry cannabis and cash registers with the change of fifty dollars.
11Ergo, a locksmith attended the location and changed the lock on the front door of the property, and a Notice of Immediate Closure Order was issued and placed on the front facing window. (Exhibit 10)
12After reading paragraph 8 of the Statement of Claim, Officer Capizzo testified that he was aware of the previous engagement by MLS in relation to 932 Bloor St. West since 2019 and there was a concern back then that the property was selling unlicensed cannabis : “On or about April 13, 2019, the Plaintiff was provided with a Notice of Contravention of Cannabis Control Act, 2017 from the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of the City of Toronto via registered mail. It was stated in the Notice:
Be advised that officers from the City’s Municipal Licensing & Standards Division (MLS), who are designated for enforcement of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017, have recently investigated 932 Bloor Street West-CAFÉ – Cannabis and Fine Edibles and determined that the Property is being used to sell cannabis contrary to sections 6 and 13 of the Cannabis Control Act, 2017.” (Exhibit 8)
EVIDENCE OF DEFENCE’S WITNESS
The Court heard from Makan Ghasabani. He is the Director of the corporation, and his testimony could be summarized as follows:
13Mr. Ghasabani testified that he took over as director of the corporation on March 30, 2023, by replacing his friend, Felice Ferri, who explained to him that they had some problems with the tenant, Eric Lauzon, and the corporation was fined. Additionally, Mr. Ferri told him that the fines were appealed and there was a lawsuit against the tenant for three million dollars in damages.
14After receiving the first notice of contravention on October 20, 2023, Mr. Ghasabani testified that he changed the locks on the tenant. However, the following morning when he drove by at approximately 9:00 A.M., the premises were open and operating. From there, Mr. Ghasabani went to 14 division, spoke to the officer who asked him about the location, and they told him to speak to his lawyer.
15Mr. Ghasabani told me that on October 26, 2023, he received another notice of contravention, and they locked the tenant out, once again. When he drove by on October 27, 2023, the premises were open once again. He called the police at 14 division, who told him the same as before, to speak to his legal team.
16On October 27, 2023, he asked his lawyer to move forward with the lawsuit and serve the Statement of Claim on Eric Lauzon.
17While under cross-examination, Mr. Ghasabani clarified that he met Mr. Ferri four or five years ago and identified himself as the owner of the corporation and the property located at 932 Bloor St. West which was leased to Eric Lauzon. Initially, he testified that the facility was planned to be a coffee shop until it opened, and they realized it was being used as a cannabis dispensary in the back.
18When asked about the fines imposed on the corporation, Mr. Ghasabani clarified that they were about $10,000 and they were appealed. However, he testified that the fines were paid, and he does not know or remember why they were imposed.
19Additionally, Mr. Ghasabani told me that the tenant was paying rent of $8,000 a month. When he took over as director, Mr. Ghasabani understood that the tenant was operating an illegal dispensary. However, when asked how long this problem was going on, Mr. Ghasabani testified that he did not remember.
20When the Prosecutor suggested to Mr. Ghasabani that the tenant had been operating this illegal dispensary since 2019, he testified that he did not remember the exact date or wanted to speculate. Additionally, he clarified that he knew that it was not a problem, as the corporation had legal representation that had taken the proper steps with the lawsuit that was in place, and the problem was almost resolved, or in the process of being resolved.
21Mr. Ghasabani was asked if he knew when he took over the corporation on March 30, 2023, that the same tenant was operating this illegal dispensary for a few years and that the corporation had initiated a lawsuit against Mr. Lauzon. In his response, Mr. Ghasabani confirmed that, “yes, he was aware of this.” Furthermore, he testified that Mr. Ferri told him that all the steps had been taken; they are looking very good and doing everything they are supposed to do to resolve this problem.
22In addition, Mr. Ghasabani clarified that Mr. Ferri failed to tell him that the lawsuit was put “on pause” and it had not been served on Mr. Lauzon.
23Beside serving the Statement of Claim on Mr. Lauzon on October 27, 2023, the Prosecutor suggested to Mr. Ghasabani that no further steps were taken by the corporation to advance it through the courts up until the alleged offence date of January 17, 2024. He clarified that he had changed the locks, went to the police, and took his Christmas vacation.
24Regarding the sworn affidavit of Mr. Ghasabani to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice of April 22, 2024, in support of his application to unbar the premises, the Prosecution read to him the following paragraph 4: “I became a director of the corporation on March 30, 2023. Just prior to that date, the corporation issued a statement of claim against Mr. Lauzon claiming damages and termination of the lease. It is my understanding that the corporation did not take further steps to advance this claim besides serving it. A copy of the statement of claim is attached to this my Affidavit as Exhibit C.”
25Mr. Ghasabani testified that he swore the truth of this document. When asked that the affidavit states, “No other steps were taken by the corporation to advance the Statement of Claim,” he responded that he did everything he had to do.
26During cross-examination, it was put to the defence’s witness that he had spoken with Mr. Ferri and was aware of the corporation’s unsuccessful attempts to change the locks in 2019. Mr. Ghasabani denied any such knowledge. He stated that, apart from his sworn statement, he had not been informed of those attempts to change the locks back in 2019.
27From paragraph 14 and 15 of the Statement of Claim, the prosecutor read: “On May 25, 2019, the Plaintiff contracted Fenster Locksmith & Car Key Lab to the change the locks to the Premises. The locks were in fact changed at the premises on that date. However, the Defendant unlawfully replaced the locks placed by the locksmith and re-entered the premises and continued to engage in the unlicensed sale and distribution of cannabis from the premises.”
28“On June 10, 2019, the Plaintiff contracted Fenster Locksmith & Car Key Lab to the change the locks to the premises. The locks were in fact changed at the premises on that date. However, the Defendant unlawfully replaced the locks placed by the locksmith and re-entered the premises and continued to engage in the unlicensed sale and distribution of cannabis from the Premises.”
29When the Prosecution asked Mr. Ghasabani again about those unsuccessful attempts to change the locks in 2019, he clarified that he was made aware of them only on October 26, 2023, or a few days after through the Statement of Claim. Mr. Ghasabani was asked about the changing of the locks years later would have no particular effect either and more was required from the corporation to stop the illegal activities in the premises; his response was, “yes if you say so.”
ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED
30The Court identified the following issues that have arisen in this proceeding, and which need to be addressed:
Did the prosecution prove the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt? If yes
Did the defendant meet the statutory defence available to the corporate defendant under s 13(2) of the CCA? The Court needs to examine the following issues:
A. ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY WITH THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENCE’S WITNESS.
B. MEASURES OF CHANGING THE LOCKS ON THE TENANT.
C. MEASURES REGARDING THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM.
D. MEASURES OF ATTENDING 14 DIVISION AND CALLING THE POLICE.
ANALYSIS
1. Did the prosecution prove the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt?
31Taking into consideration the Agreed Statement of Facts, the viva voce evidence of Officer Cappizo, the admitted exhibits, and the viva voce evidence of the Corporation‘s witness, Mr. Ghasabani, it is clear that the actus reus of the offence has been made out under s. 13 (1). Additionally, it is unchallenged that the defendant corporation, the landlord, owns the premises located on 932 Bloor St. W. in Toronto on the date of the offence of January 17, 2024, and knew that it was open and operating as an unlicensed cannabis store that was leased to Eric Lauzon since 2018.
32It is undisputed that the corporate defendant knew that the premises were never licensed and it was used in the unlawful activity of selling cannabis at the location as defined under s 6 of the CCA. Therefore, the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt all the essential elements of the offence.
33Now, it is up to the defendant to raise a defence that the landlord took reasonable measures to prevent the unlawful activity according to section 13 (2) of the CCA.
2. Has the corporate defendant met the statutory defence by taking reasonable measures to prevent and stop the prohibited activity, on the balance of probabilities, under s 13 (2) of the CCA?
34Justice Rondinelli analyzed the test under the “reasonable measures” standard in his decision regarding the City of Toronto v. 2694605 Ontario Inc., 2024 ONCJ 724. He accepted that it is a lower standard than the traditional due diligence defence of “all reasonable steps” as in R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 11 (SCC), 1978, 2 SCR 1299.
35Additionally, Justice Rondinelli referred to the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgment in R. v. Barton, 2019 SCC 33 that had provided some guidance as to what constitutes “reasonable steps” … at para. 104, the majority of the Court held: ... It 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 …”.
A. ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY WITH THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENCE’S WITNESS
36The Court must consider reasonable doubt in assessing credibility, given the inconsistencies and contradictions in Mr. Ghasabani’s testimony. Therefore, I will firstly deal with the assessment of the credibility as specified in W. (D.) in my examination of the defence witness’s evidence.
37Then, I will deal with the analysis of the reasonable steps taken by the defendant to prevent the activity, according to R. v. Barton.
38Accordingly, it is incumbent upon the Court to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. W. (D.), 1991 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742 in which Mr. Justice Cory set out the credibility test as follows:
✔ First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously, you must acquit.
✔ Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.
✔ Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.
39When Mr. Ghasabani took over as a director of the corporation, he went through the premises at 932 Bloor St. West. Among others, he knew that the place was open and operating an unlicensed cannabis store.
40I find it difficult to accept that Mr. Ferri, the operating mind and the owner of the property, told Mr. Ghasabani about the corporation being fined $10,000 when he replaced him as a director. Furthermore, Mr. Ghasabani testified that Mr. Ferri told him they had appealed those fines. However, Mr. Ghasabani testified that he does not know or remember why the fines were imposed.
41A reasonable person with common sense would have asked questions and sought clarification as to why the corporation, of which he was becoming a director, engaged in these legal proceedings and why it was fined?
42Further, Mr. Ghasabani testified that he did not know that Eric Lauzon, the tenant, was operating an unlicensed dispensary and that it was locked out twice since 2019. He only knew about it when he met with his legal team after receiving the second notice of contravention and ordered them to serve the Statement of Claim on the tenant.
43On one hand, I find it difficult to accept that Mr. Ghasabani knew that the tenant was operating an illegal dispensary. However, he does not remember the exact date when it happened. On the other hand, he confirmed that he was aware that the tenant was operating an unlicensed dispensary that had been going on for few years.
44I took note that the corporation’s counsel prepared the Statement of Claim of March 17, 2023. It clearly indicates that the locks were changed unsuccessfully twice in 2019. I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Ghasabani was not apprised about its content by either Mr. Ferri or his legal team when he took over as director.
45In addition, Mr. Ghasabani surprised me when he testified that he knew some specific details about the Statement of Claim. At one point, he corrected the Prosecutor when she told him the lawsuit was for one million and he clarified that it was for three million dollars, as they were trying to evict the tenant.
46Additionally, he testified that he is not a lawyer and did not read the Statement of Claim. It was only explained to him when he sat down with the lawyer after receiving the second notice of contravention. By accepting the role of director, Mr. Ghasabani assumed a duty of active oversight. Consequently, he had a legal obligation to seek timely clarification and details regarding the Statement of Claim from either the corporation counsel or Mr. Ferri.
47Needless to say, Mr. Ghasabani is not the defendant; it is the corporation. However, being a director has serious obligations. The director shall act in the best interest of the corporation and exercise the care, diligence, and skills that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances.
48The Court finds parts of the testimony of Mr. Ghasabani to be problematic, self-serving, lacking the specifics and, in some instances, contradictory and not credible.
49Mr. Ghasabani testified that, after receiving the first notice of contravention of October 20, 2023, he changed the locks late in the night and received the keys. The following morning, at about 9 in the morning, the premises were open and operating when he drove by. He told me that it is beyond him how the tenant unlocked the premises and got in. Therefore, he presumed that they had changed the locks.
50I find it difficult to believe in this short lapse of time and in the middle of the night, the tenant would know that he was locked out, that he needed to hire someone to change the lock after midnight and to open the place early in the morning.
WHAT CAN AND CANNOT CONSTITUTE REASONABLE MEASURES?
51In this case at hand, the reasonable steps inquiry is highly fact specific and will be assessed on the basis of factual circumstances of which the defendant has been subjectively aware. Hence, the Court will deal with the three key measures and assess if they have constituted reasonable steps in the circumstances.
B. THE MEASURES OF CHANGING THE LOCKS ON THE TENANT
52Does repeating the same measure that failed in the past constitute a reasonable step? This is one of the key questions that the Court needs to resolve.
53The Court notes from the evidence heard that on May 25 and June 10, 2019, the Plaintiff (Corporation 10956392 Canada Inc.) contracted Fenster Locksmith & Car Key Lab to the change the locks to the premises. The locks were, in fact, changed at the premises on the same dates. However, the Defendant (Eric Lauzon) unlawfully replaced the locks placed by the locksmith the following day and re-entered the premises and continued to engage in the unlicensed sale and distribution of cannabis from the premises. (From the Statement of Claim. Para 14 and 15.)
54Again, on October 20 and October 27, 2023, Mr. Ghasabani changed the locks on the premises occupied by the tenant. Somewhat remarkably, the tenant was able to open and operate the premises early in the morning of each day. Additionally, he continued his engagement in the unlawful and unlicensed sale and distribution of cannabis from the store.
55For the Court, repeating the same actions and the same measures of locking out the tenant which were ineffective each time in the past and each time in the present case is a continuation by the corporation of relying on measures that failed to stop the tenant from engaging in the prohibited action of the sale of unlicensed cannabis from the premises. The corporation knew that these measures were ineffective in the past and they failed to stop the tenant from his behaviour of the sale of the unlicensed cannabis products.
56I find it difficult to understand how the tenant was able to change the locks in a short period of time, in the middle of the night, and open the same day or the following morning, without any interruption to his business.
57I find that the repeated changing of the locks is not a reasonable measure in the circumstances, as it does not lead or have any impact on the continuation of the illegal act or on the prevention of the unlawful cannabis activity in the premises. Therefore, these steps taken by the corporation are not objectively reasonable, and their reasonableness are futile and ineffective in the circumstances that the corporate defendant knew and knows that they failed to stop the tenant each time from the sale and distribution of the unlicensed cannabis products.
58The corporate defendant was aware of these measures in 2019, and the same thing happened again on October 2023. In the circumstances before me, these measures are futile, ineffective, unreasonable objectively and subjectively.
59Obviously, Mr. Ghasabani had subjective knowledge of the fact that the tenant was using the premises for the unlicensed sale and distribution of the cannabis since he took over as director. When he toured the place, he was aware, and he knew that the premises engaged in the unlicensed sale of cannabis.
60In this case, even though the lock smith changed the locks four times, the premises were opened a few hours after and continued the activities of selling and distributing the unlicensed cannabis products.
61The only reasonable inference I could make to explain these continued failed measures is that the tenant is a reliable source of income and the corporate defendant is satisfied with the $8,000 a month they receive for the rent on a timely fashion from Mr. Lauzon.
62I find the appeal decision of Justice Nathanson relevant and on point. At para 31 of Toronto (City) v Hafez, 2026 OJ No 2122, he notes:
Further, the appellant's continued collection of rent from CAFÉ, despite having served them with a notice purportedly terminating the lease, likely sent a mixed message to CAFÉ and could have been seen as tacit approval to continue their illegal activity so long as they continued to pay rent. Far from taking reasonable measures to prevent the activity, his failure to check on the property or notify police or take any other action at all, while cashing rent cheques every month for eleven months, could reasonably be seen as passively permitting the activity to continue - which is what the Justice found he did. In my view this conclusion was available to him on the totality of the evidence.
C. THE MEASURES REGARDING THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM THAT WAS FILED ON MARCH 17, 2023.
Is serving the statement of claim on the tenant on October 27, 2023, and not taking any other actions, a reasonable measure?
63It is evident from Exhibit 8 that the defendant corporation 10956392 Canada Inc. (Plaintiff) was aware that a Statement of Claim was filed by their lawyer against Eric Lauzon (defendant) on March 17, 2023. It had waited over seven months before serving it on the tenant on October 27, 2023. Mr. Ghasabani testified that he was not aware that the Statement of Claim was “put on pause” and it was not served on the tenant until he received the second notice of contravention.
64For the Court, waiting almost seven months before serving the Statement of Claim on Mr. Lauzon is not a reasonable measure. After the defendant corporation received the second notice of contravention, this follow-up seems to me more of a symbolic gesture without any enforcement attached to it or other legal actions.
65As a director, Mr. Ghasabani has an obligation towards the corporation and he should have asked Mr. Ferri and the lawyer of the corporation about any legal proceedings regarding it. In his testimony, Mr. Ghasabani stated that he does not think that Mr. Ferri lied to him about this Statement of Claim. However, Mr. Ghasabani testified that Mr. Ferri told him that they have a legal team that is one of the best in the city and that they are going to do everything to defeat the tenant and move them out successfully. In addition, Mr. Ferri told him they are taking all the steps to remove the tenant and everything was resolved or almost resolved. The evidence before me is the tenant was still operating his business at the premises and he was never removed before the corporation was charged on January 17, 2024.
66Additionally, the Court accepts that no other measures were taken to advance the Statement of Claim from the date of serving it on the tenant until the offence date of January 17, 2024. I have taken note that Officer Capizzo told me in his testimony that the decision to charge the landlord was made on January 17, 2024, and he did not receive any indication from Counsel Gerry that he obtained a court date or has taken any measures to advance the matter through the court.
67Ergo, until April 22, 2024, the corporation did not take any further steps to advance the Statement of Claim, besides serving it on the tenant on October 27, 2023. In his sworn affidavit of April 22, 2024, in support of his application to unbar the premises, at para 4 of the affidavit, Mr. Ghasabani said: (Exhibit 13) “I became a director of the corporation on March 30, 2023. Just prior to that date, the corporation issued a statement of claim against Mr. Lauzon claiming damages and a termination of the lease. It is my understanding that the corporation did not take further steps to advance this claim, besides serving it. A copy of the statement of claim is attached to this my Affidavit as Exhibit “C”.
68I accept that the corporate defendant knew very well that they had a serious problem with the tenant using the premises for the illegal and unlicensed sale of the cannabis products that has been going on for a few years. It took the corporation over seven months to serve the Statement of Claim on the tenant and over a year to pursue it through the Ontario Superior Court to unbar the premises.
69A reasonable person would not have waited all that time to take further action with the Statement of Claim. Even though a statement of defence was received from Eric Lauzon on November 13, 2023, the Court notes that no further steps were taken before January 17, 2024, and up to April 22, 2024.
70Overall, the Court finds that the corporation has waited a long time to take steps that are objectively capable of preventing Mr. Lauzon from selling unlawful cannabis from the premises. The continued delay, with the knowledge that the tenant was still in the premises, makes the defence that the corporate defendant used with the Statement of Claim ineffective and subjectively unreasonable.
D. MEASURES OF ATTENDING 14 DIVISION AND CALLING THE POLICE
71On October 21, 2023, Mr. Ghasabani testified that he went to 14 division and spoke to a clerk and an officer who asked him about the name of the location and its address. Additionally, Mr. Ghasabani testified that the officer told him, and I quote: “they went through this with them many times in the past and he needed to speak to his lawyer.”
72The same thing had happened when he received the second notice of contravention, and he called 14 division. Again, he testified that he was told to speak to his legal team.
73I find that a reasonable person would have acted differently in the circumstances. A reasonable person would have asked for a report or ticket number if the officer had created one; the name, the badge number, and the rank of the officer he spoke with. Additionally, Mr. Ghasabani should have persisted and insisted on the police to take action, as this is a serious matter that could have legal and financial impacts on the corporation.
74Thus, I find that these steps taken by the defence were unreasonable and ineffective. The officers seem to have dismissed them twice and no action was taken. Either the officers knew about what was happening at the premises, as they dealt with them many times in the past without success or as conveyed to Mr. Ghasabani, they wanted the corporation to take legal action, which were not done before the charge was laid.
CONCLUSION
75After reviewing the relevant case law, the totality of the evidence before the Court, including the reasons provided earlier, the viva voce testimonies, the documentary evidence and a thorough review of the submissions from the Prosecution and Defence, the Court finds that the prosecution has met its onus of proving the actus reus of the offences against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.
76In addition, the Court finds that the corporate defendant has not satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that considering its actions through an objective and subjective lens in the highly fact-specific context before me, that it has taken reasonable steps, in the circumstances, to remove or stop the tenant from his unlawful activity of selling and distributing cannabis products from the premises.
77Therefore, I find the defendant guilty and register a conviction against the corporate defendant 10956392 Canada Inc.
RELEASED: JUNE 9. 2026
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BRIHMI:
APPENDIX A
DATE: June 9, 2026
COURT FILE No.: TORONTO 4863-999-24-243002631
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
— AND —
1095639 CANADA INC.
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 Drug 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 license issued by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario were authorized to sell cannabis in the Province of Ontario.
The establishment operating under the name “CAFE” at 932 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario has never been licensed as an authorized cannabis retailer by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.
The property at 932 Bloor Steet West, Toronto, is owned by 10956392 Canada Inc. and was owned by the defendant corporation at all material times and on January 17, 2024.
By October 31, 2023, the Defendant has received Notices of Contravention of the Cannabis Control Act dated October 20 and 23, 2023, Standards Cannabis Enforcement Team and served upon the defendant by registered mail.
A provincial Offences Act search warrant of the promises a Justice of the Peace was executed on January 17, 2024.
At all material times on January 17, 2024, “CAFE” was observed by members of the Municipal Licensing and Standards Cannabis Enforcement Team and members of the Toronto Police Services, 14 Division, to be open and operating.
On January 17, 2024, the officers entered by way of an open door.
At all material times on January 17, 2024, four persons were found by members of the Municipal Licensing and Standards Cannabis Enforcement Team and members of the Toronto Police Services, 14 Division, in the care and control of the property where cannabis and cannabis products were ready for sale to the public and on display.
After the inspection date on January 17, 2024, where charges were laid, the premises was the subject of immediate closure issued and posted on the storefront.
After the inspection of January 17, 2024, entry to the dispensary was barred pursuant to the Cannabis Control Act.
The following items were seized from “CAFE” and turned over to the Toronto Police Services:
64,980 cannabis and cannabis products (grams)
$815.00 CDN currency.
APPENDIX B
DATE: June 9,2026
COURT FILE No.: TORONTO 4863-999-24-243002631
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
— AND —
1095639 CANADA INC.
EXHIBITS
The court received a total of thirteen documents and photos which were made exhibits on consent. This is the full list of exhibits:
1 Agreed statement of facts
2 Notice of Evidence Act
3 Corporate profile reports, dated October 5, 2023, July 8, 2025, and January 17, 2024
4 Parcel registry, dated October 3, 2018
5 Transfer AT4973476
6 Two notices of contravention, dated October 20, 2023, and October 23, 2023
7 Certificate: Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario
8 Emails, locksmith invoices and Statement of Claim
9 Notice of immediate closure order
10 Photographs (From 1-22)
11 Form 6, change of directors
12 Statement of defence
13 Sworn affidavit of Mr. Ghasabani