ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
File No. 4860 999 25 25100498 00
Toronto
BETWEEN:
CITY OF TORONTO
— AND —
HAVCARE INVESTMENTS INC.
Before Justice of the Peace Scarfe
Heard on May 22, 2026 and June 3, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on June 19, 2026
C. Bendick Counsel for the City of Toronto
D. Cordaie Licensed Paralegal for HAVCARE INVESTMENTS INC.
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE SCARFE:
1HAVCARE INVESTMENTS INC. (“Havcare”) pleaded guilty to thirteen counts of Failing to Comply with an Order issued pursuant to the Property Standards By-Law, in relation to various deficiencies at a high-rise rental apartment building located at 500 Dawes Road in the City of Toronto. The offences are alleged to have taken place mainly throughout 2025, following numerous visits by various Property Standards Inspectors.
2In all cases, there was an original visit by an Inspector, deficiencies were identified, and an Order was issued pursuant to the Building Code, compelling the Corporation to remedy the deficiencies within a set period time. For counts 12 and 13, the Order required additional steps to be taken by the Landlord. Sometime after the deadline expired, one of the Inspectors would return to the address to determine whether the order had been complied with. If the Order had not been complied with, the Corporation was charged with Failing to Comply with an Order pursuant to the Property Standards By-Law and the Building Code.
3Through Mr. Cordaie, a licensed paralegal, Havcare pleaded guilty to all thirteen counts on May 22, 2026. Mr. Cordaie assured the Court that he had engaged in a lengthy and thorough plea inquiry with the sole director of the Corporation, Carolyn Krebs, as mandated by s. 45 of the Provincial Offences Act. While each charge was on a separate information, they were dealt with together for the purposes of sentencing.
4The parties presented a joint submission on sentence with varying fines in relation to each of the thirteen counts, as follows:
Count 1, Info # 25100498 - $10,000
Count 2, Info # 25100502 - $15,000
Count 3, Info # 25100648 - $10,000
Count 4, Info # 25100650 - $15,000
Count 5, Info # 25100651 - $15,000
Count 6, Info # 25100485 - $15,000
Count 7, Info # 25100649 - $15,000
Count 8, Info # 25100658 - $15,000
Count 9, Info # 25100750 - $10,000
Count 10, Info # 25100633 - $15,000
Count 11, Info # 25100637 - $15,000
Count 12, Info # 25101039 - $75,000
Count 13, Info # 25100933 - $75,000
Total: $300,000 plus Victim Fine Surcharge (25%) and a Court Administration Fee.
5After hearing the agreed facts and submissions from both sides, I gave notice to the parties, as per the procedure in R v Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, 2016 2 SCR 204, that I was considering rejecting the joint submission. The matter was adjourned to June 3, 2026, when counsel made further submissions. Mr. Cordaie did not apply to strike the guilty pleas.
6With respect to all but Counts 12 and 13, and after much deliberation, I have decided to accede to the joint submission proposed by both sides. With respect to Count’s 12 and 13, I am rejecting the joint submission of $75,000 per count and am substituting a fine of $400,000 for each count. To be clear, I have already considered and accounted for the 25% Victim Fine Surcharge as a real-life economic reality, as discussed in R. v. Henry Heyink Construction Ltd., 1999 CanLII 1254 (ONCA).
7With respect to the counts where I have decided to accede to the joint submission seven of those 11 counts (counts 1, 3, 5, 6, 9 10 and 11) relate to deficiencies within individual apartments. Included in these is an extensive list of significant deficiencies reflecting the substandard living conditions the tenants continue to endure. The images, from the photos filed, depict deplorable living conditions that significantly interfere with the use and enjoyment of the affected living units.
8While unacceptable, those deficiencies, for the most part, do not present a serious risk of significant bodily harm or death. The Property Standards order for each unit required the landlord to remedy those deficiencies within a reasonable time.
9Specifically, the list of deficiencies include a leaking refrigerator, broken toilet, leaking kitchen sink, missing floor tiles, malfunctioning balcony doors, broken kitchen cupboards and evidence of mice. Several of the affected apartments had major damage to the ceilings, walls and concrete balconies, mainly from water damage. For the vast majority of the required repairs, the landlord failed to remedy the deficiencies by the deadline set out in the Property Standards Order. As of the day of the guilty plea, those deficiencies remain unaddressed.
10The other four counts (2, 4, 7 and 8) relate to deficiencies found in the common areas of the building. This included an elevator that, while functioning, had not been certified and required repairs (count 2); in one of the stairwells, thirteen different deficiencies were identified (count 4) including broken doors, cracked or missing tiles, damaged walls and insecure handrails.
11Count 7 involved deficiencies to the outdoor parking area and adjacent exterior yard. There were numerous derelict vehicles, mechanical equipment, trailers and boats observed in this area. Many of the vehicles and other items were dismantled and inoperative. The adjacent yard had not been kept clean from the accumulation of junk, litter and brush.
12Count 8 related to the rear exit and exterior yard. The rear steps did not afford safe passage; the exterior doors were not capable of being locked or otherwise secured from the inside of the building. These common area deficiencies presented a moderate risk of injury to tenants and their guests but did not rise to the level where death or significant injury were likely to occur.
13Counts 12 and 13 fall into a completely different category. The risk to life and/or permanent injury is significant and, at some point, highly likely. Count 12 began with an investigation into a balcony rail and guard system that had become detached outside of Unit 302. A small adult or child could have easily slipped through and fell to their death, or sustained significant permanent injuries. Numerous photos were filed which showed that many of the other balconies had fall guards that were completely rusted through or missing. This included a missing panel on the balcony outside unit 702, as well as several balconies where the guard system was completely rusted through requiring urgent repairs. This included unit 502, 505, as well as several other units that were photographed but not identified.
14For Count 12 the Property Standards Order went way beyond requiring the landlord to simply fix the deficiencies. Rather, the Order was to remedy an unsafe building pursuant to s 15.9 (4) of the Building Code Act. The Order required numerous, and no doubt costly steps to be taken by the Landlord Corporation.
15These steps included immediately preventing access to the balcony from within the unit. It also required that the landlord retain the services of a professional engineer to inspect not only the affected balconies and supervise the repairs, but to also identify concerns with respect to the remainder of the building, including inspecting and assessing the integrity of the balcony guard rails throughout all 282 units The Order required the professional engineer to provide reports to the City setting out the cause, as well as the necessary steps to remediation. As well, the engineer was to supervise the remediation process and provide a further report confirming that the repairs were satisfactory. This Order was completely ignored.
16Count 13 referred to significant deficiencies in the underground parking garage. The Inspector observed falling chunks of concrete and extensive crumbling as well as significant deterioration of the concrete slabs in the ceiling at several locations with exposed rebar reinforcement, most likely due to extensive water damage. The damage was evident above several support columns as well as several vertical foundation cracks extending from the floor to the top of the foundation wall adjacent to the support columns. There was a severely damaged concrete support column along the north wall of the parking garage. There were numerous column beams that were heavily damaged and deteriorating near the support columns in several locations throughout the parking garage.
17The Inspector issued a second order to remedy the unsafe building pursuant to section 15.9 (4) of the Building Code Act. This again required the landlord to take several steps. The Landlord was required to obtain a report from a professional engineer assessing the extensive structural concerns identified by the Inspector. It also required a report assessing the overall structural integrity of the parking garage including an assessment as to whether it was suitable for its intended purpose in its current state. In that report, the engineer was to describe the reasons for this conclusion, and to set out the work required to render the garage suitable for its intended use. A deadline was set. When the inspector returned to follow up, they determined that the order had been ignored and that compliance was not forthcoming.
18The facts agreed between the parties disclosed that the Corporation has a single director named Carolyn Krebs. The building has 282 units, 90 of which were unoccupied, leaving 192 units occupied by tenants at the material time. The building is 14 stories tall with both outdoor and indoor parking areas.
19The assessed value of the building for tax purposes, despite its current dismal state, is approximately 35 million dollars. There are no mortgages registered on title. The average monthly rent is $1000 per unit suggesting a gross income of $190,000 per month and a yearly gross income of just under 2.3 million dollars.
20The sole director, either through her ownership of shares in Havcare, or in her personal capacity, also owns at least six other apartment buildings in the City of Toronto.
21A significant portion of the tenants at 500 Dawes Road are recipients of either Ontario Works or the Ontario Disability Support Plan. This points to a community of vulnerable individuals with few options and limited resources. Preying on the vulnerabilities of an already disadvantaged community of individuals is clearly an aggravating factor to be considered when assessing an appropriate penalty.
22To make matters worse, the Corporation has three prior convictions related to the building at 500 Dawes Road. In November of 2012, Havcare was convicted of one count of Failing to Comply with a Property Standards Order. It received a fine of $2500.
23In December of 2016, Havcare was convicted of the same offence and received a fine of $800.
24In April of 2023 Havcare was convicted of a single count of Failing to Comply with a Property Standards Order and received a fine of $25,000.
25Considering the principles of sentencing in Provincial Offences Act matters, along with the step or jump principle, the fines agreed to by the parties for counts 1-11 are extremely lenient. The record of prior convictions would suggest that fines in the range of $30,000 to $50,000 per count would have been more appropriate. Nevertheless, I find the fines of $10,000 to $15,000 per count, when considering totality, are not so low as to bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
26After careful consideration, I have determined that, in consideration of the risk to life posed by the ongoing violations, the fines suggested for counts 12 and 13 are so low and so unhinged from reality that they would cause any reasonable person to lose confidence in our regulatory system of justice. The suggested fines for counts 11 and 12 would, in my view, bring the administration of justice into serious disrepute.
The Law:
27The primary principles of sentencing in regulatory matters are deterrence, both general and specific. Where there are prior convictions showing that previous sanctions have had no effect on compliance, the principle of denunciation also takes a more prominent role.
28R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd., 1982 CanLII 3695 (ON CA), [1982] O.J. No. 178 is the seminal case on sentencing for regulatory matters in Ontario. It makes clear that the principle of deterrence is the most important factor to be considered in this context. Although it was case under a different Act, the general principles are set out in para 19:
The Occupational Health and Safety Act is part of a large family of statutes creating what are known as public welfare offences. The Act has a proud place in this group of statutes because its progenitors, the Factory Acts, were among the first modern public welfare statutes designed to establish standards of health and safety in the workplace. Examples of this type of statute are legion and cover all facets of life ranging from safety and consumer protection to ecological conservation. In our complex interdependent modern society such regulatory statutes are accepted as essential in the public interest. They ensure standards of conduct, performance and reliability by various economic groups and make life tolerable for all. To a very large extent the enforcement of such statutes is achieved by fines imposed on offending corporations. The amount of the fine will be determined by a complex of considerations, including the size of the company involved, the scope of the economic activity in issue, the extent of actual and potential harm to the public, and the maximum penalty prescribed by statute. Above all, the amount of the fine will be determined by the need to enforce regulatory standards by deterrence: see R. v. Ford Motor Company of Canada Limited (1979), 1979 CanLII 2838 (ON CA), 49 C.C.C. (2d) 1, per MacKinnon A.C.J.O at p. 26; Nadin-Davis, Sentencing in Canada, p. 368 and cases therein cited.
29The purpose of public welfare or regulatory offences are important considerations when imposing sentences. Regulatory offences are not criminal offences. The prescribed activity is not prohibited by regulatory offences because it is inherently wrong. The activity is regulated because, if left unregulated, it would result in danger to the public. These offences serve to protect the public from potentially harmful conduct by ensuring the safety of the food we eat, our work environment and the vehicles that transport us: R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc. (1991), 1991 CanLII 39 (SCC), 67 C.C.C. (3d) 193 (S.C.C.).
30Individuals and corporations are intended to be treated differently in terms of sentence. Parity is an important consideration when considering fines against those received by other like corporations. The intention of the legislature was to treat individuals and corporations differently: R. v. Servello Carpentry Ltd., [2010] O.J. No. 6264 (Ont. C.J.).
31The essential issue when examining the economic activity of the corporation is not to place weight on their economic contribution to the project in question, but rather to determine the entire scope of the company’s economic activity, so that the fine imposed makes a significant impact on their pocketbook. This reflects the paramountcy of deterrence in these types of prosecutions. “By focusing on the size of the corporation’s contribution to the project and indicating it was only $36,000.00, the justice of the peace improperly characterized the factor of the scope of economic activity”. see R. v. Servello Carpentry Ltd., supra.
32In the case of Dairy Queen and/or Embrun DQ Grill & Chill, 2024 ONCA 543, the Ontario Court of Appeal considered the scope of economic activity in the context of a corporation operating multiple locations, as is the case here. The Courts below had erred in considering the scope of economic activity at only a single store, as opposed to the many locations operated by the corporation. The Court of Appeal stated as follows at paragraph 32-33:
Sentencing ranges for individuals for provincial offences cannot be unthinkingly applied to sentencing of corporate defendants. This is so for at least two reasons. First, for most offences created by provincial statute, the legislature has set a higher maximum fine for a corporate defendant than for an individual defendant. For the legislation at issue in this case, the OHSA, at the time of the offence, the maximum fine for an individual was $25,000, while the maximum fine for a corporation was $500,000.2 The fact that the maximum penalty is significantly higher for corporations than for individuals speaks to a different sentencing range. The different sentencing range for corporations as compared to individuals means that parity usually will not apply directly between sentences imposed on individuals and corporations: Cotton Felts, at p. 294; New Mex, at para. 100.
This brings us to the second reason that parity often will not apply directly between corporations and individuals in sentencing for OHSA offences. The legislative choice to enact a higher maximum fine for corporations demonstrates a legislative intention that a broader spectrum of penalties be available in sentencing corporations than is available for individuals because it is often, but not always, the case that corporations have more economic means than individuals. As a result, higher fines may be required to achieve specific and general deterrence in sentencing a corporation as compared to an individual.
33In R. v. Servello Carpentry Ltd., supra, a corporate defendant was fined $15,000 for failing as an employer to provide an adequate guardrail or covering for a fall hazard contrary to the Occupational Health and Safety Act following accident where a worker fell, sustaining injuries which included paralysis to the lower half of his body. There is a recognized need to protect workers and give effect to the real purpose of this public welfare legislation, by imposing fines which act as a sufficient deterrent to the defendant and other like-minded corporations. In this case, the Court found that the justice of the peace did not give effect to the paramountcy of the principle of general deterrence that is necessary in cases of this nature. The appeal was allowed and the fine increased from $15,000 to $100,000:
It is important to note that the fine structure under the Building Code Act sets as a maximum fine for a first offence at $500,000 per count. For a subsequent offence, the maximum fine jumps quite significantly to $1.5 million per count. The legislative intent is quite clear. Repeat offenders are to be subject to maximum fines three times those of a first offender. That is, of course, subject to the principle of totality for multiple counts.
Joint Submissions:
34The Supreme Court of Canada in R v Anthony-Cook, supra, made it clear that a joint submission on sentence following a guilty plea should only be rejected in rare circumstances. Anthony-Cook was a criminal case, but the principles are the same in regulatory law. Joint positions on sentence negotiated between experienced counsel should almost always be deferred to because those positions are “vitally important to the well-being of our criminal justice system, as well as the justice system at large.”
35Guilty pleas and negotiated agreements as to sentence promote a fair and efficient justice system and are a necessary part of its daily operation. The number of charges laid each year in the regulatory system in Ontario far exceed the number of criminal charges. Most of those charges resolve by way of guilty plea or withdrawal. While the mandatory plea inquiry set out in s. 45 of the Ontario Provincial Offences Act acknowledges that in joint submissions, the jurist ultimately has the final say, the system is undeniably dependant on most cases being resolved without a trial.
36In Anthony Cook, Moldaver J stated as follows:
In my view, these powerful statements capture the essence of the public interest test developed by the Martin Committee. They emphasize that a joint submission should not be rejected lightly, a conclusion with which I agree. Rejection denotes a submission so unhinged from the circumstances of the offence and the offender that its acceptance would lead reasonable and informed persons, aware of all the relevant circumstances, including the importance of promoting certainty in resolution discussions, to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down. This is an undeniably high threshold - and for good reason, as I shall explain.
37Justice Moldaver went on to explain why a stringent test for rejecting a joint submission is so necessary. To encourage guilty pleas in appropriate cases, accused persons require a strong degree of certainty before engaging in the process. Joint submissions are necessarily lower than what the defendant might expect to receive following a trial, as they should be. This encourages a guilty defendant to plead guilty promptly. If joint submissions are departed from too often, most defendants will be less likely to plead guilty. If many more defendants choose to proceed to trial, the system as we know it would collapse due to volume. The system depends on certainty when joint submissions are presented. That certainty does not merely benefit the defendant. Rather it benefits all justice participants including victims, witnesses and counsel, as pointed out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in In R v Fuller, 2020 ONCA 115.
Analysis:
38I am no expert in the cost of building or the fees charged by professional engineers. Nevertheless, a fine of $75,000 on each of counts 12 and 13, would, if imposed, simply be a licensing fee to continue operating without compliance. If the defendant were to hire a professional engineering firm to conduct a thorough assessment of the integrity of all the balconies, and/or the structural integrity of the parking garage, I would expect the fees associated with each assessment to exceed $75,000. Remediating the problems would present significant further costs which could be expected to be significantly more.
39In short, the moral blameworthiness of Havcare is very high. Havcare is essentially a slumlord that preys on vulnerable tenants, by refusing to comply with the very basic standards set out in the Building Code Act and its regulations. Havcare is a repeat offender, now four times over. Even after being charged, prosecuted and pleading guilty, Havcare persists in remaining in an ongoing state of non-compliance.
40The fines suggested jointly by the parties for Counts 11 and 12 are well below the cost of repairing or even assessing the deficiencies. It is only a matter of time before someone falls off a balcony and dies. The parking garage is in the early stages of failing structurally and will only get worse with time. It is clear from the photos that chunks of concrete continue to fall randomly in the parking garage, creating a serious ongoing danger. The photos show the garage to be almost entirely empty, suggesting that the tenants who have cars are very reluctant to park there. The principles of deterrence must be applied with sufficient force to discourage Havcare, and other slumlord corporations, from failing to maintain basic safety standards and putting lives of its vulnerable tenants at risk on a daily basis.
41Counsel submits that by pleading guilty to the thirteen counts before me, twelve trials were avoided. While each trial would have taken a day or two, as opposed to several two-week long criminal jury trials, the guilty plea saved a significant amount of court time. Nevertheless, with respect to Counts 12 and 13, reasonable members of the public would, in my view, be deeply troubled by the fact that Havcare received a mere “slap on the wrist”.
42At $75,000 per count, it is simply cheaper for Havcare to continue in a state of non-compliance, as opposed to paying the costs of having a professional engineer conduct an assessment and carry out the necessary repairs. Considering the scope of Havcare’s economic activity, the prior record of convictions and the significant danger to the life of the tenants, this situation cannot be allowed to continue. Havcare is well overdue for a stronger expression of specific deterrence. The lives of the tenants, many of whom are vulnerable, cannot be placed at this level of jeopardy.
43On counts 11 and 12, the fine will be $400,000 per count. The fine for all 13 counts will total $950,000 plus Victim Fine Surcharges and Court Administration Fees.
Released: June 19, 2026
Justice of the Peace J. Scarfe