Toronto (City) v. 2371811 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCJ 489

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: Toronto (City) v. 2371811 Ontario Inc., 2026 ONCJ 489

DATE: 2026 08 17

COURT FILE No.: 4862 999 25 25200624-00

BETWEEN:

THE KING (CITY OF TORONTO)

— AND —

2371811 Ontario Inc.

Before Justice of the Peace Beverly Brooks

Heard on June 22, 2026

Reasons for Judgment released on August 17, 2026

O. Shah........................................................................... Prosecutor for the City of Toronto

V. Manoukian............................................................................. Paralegal for the Defendant

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BROOKS:

[1] I conducted this Part III trial under the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 545-15A(1), Licencing.

[2] The defendant, 2371811 Ontario Inc., was charged as follows:

(i) On or about the 10^th of May, 2025, being a driving school operator, did cause or permit driving instruction to be given on or in any of the streets, highways or areas described in 545-15A of the Toronto Municipal Code, contrary to section 545 subsection 15(b) of the Toronto Municipal Code, as amended.

[3] A plea of not guilty was entered on behalf of 2371811 Ontario Inc. which was represented by Mr. Manoukian.

[4] Mohammed Zahia, a director of 2371811 Ontario Inc., testified for the corporate defendant. The corporate name for 2371811 Ontario Inc. is Triple A All Star Driving School Ltd. 2371811 Ontario Inc. has offices at 550 St. Clair Avenue West, Unit 201, Toronto, 239 Sheppard Avenue, North York and 1225 Kennedy Road, Scarborough.

[5] Officer Brett Boulrice, City of Toronto By-Law Officer, testified for the prosecution. He was the investigating officer in this matter.

[6] I am satisfied that this is a strict liability offence.

PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE:

[7] The Prosecutor provided a certified copy of City of Toronto, Municipal Code, Chapter 545-15A which prohibits driving instruction in several areas including any public park in the City of Toronto. This is the only certified evidence to come before the court during this hearing.

Officer Boulrice

[8] The Prosecutor relied on the testimony of Officer Boulrice, badge number 6129, who observed a driving school instructor, Mirwais Abdulli, riding in a Toyota Corolla with a Triple A All Star Driving School roof top sign, enter Earl Bales Park at 4169 Bathurst Street in the City of Toronto, and charged him on May 10, 2025 with entering a public park, a prohibited place in which to give driving instructions under Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 545-15A.

Agreed Set of Facts

[9] The Prosecutor presented a document entitled “Agreed Set of Facts”. Mr. Manoukian agreed to it on the record. This document states the charge “Being a driving school operator did cause or permit driving instruction to be given on or in any of the streets, highways or areas described in subsection 545-15A of the Toronto Municipal Code, contrary to section 545-15(b) of the Toronto Municipal Code, as amended”. The “Agreed Set of Facts” are as follows:

1. On May 10, 2025, the above incident took place in Earl Bales Park with the address of 4169 Bathurst St., Toronto;

2. Earl Bales Park at 4169 Bathurst St., Toronto is a prohibited area in which to provide driving instructions;

3. 2371811 Ontario Inc. is operating as Triple A All Star Driving School;

4. Mirwais Abdulli was a City’s instructor licence holder and was in the front seat of a Toyota Corolla with an Ontario licence plate BZZB680;

5. The Toyota Corolla had a roof sign of “All Star Driving School” with a MLS licence plate of #6404 and a front passenger side brake;

6. All Star Driving School is operated by 2371811 Ontario Inc.;

7. Mirwais Abdulli is the owner of the Toyota Corolla and this vehicle operates under All Star Driving School, which is operated by 2371811 Ontario Inc.; and

8. Ms. Reindea Pauline Tupas of Toledo, Ontario, a G1 licence holder, was the driver of that Toyota Corolla.

DEFENDANT’S EVIDENCE:

Testimony of Mohammed Zahia:

[10] Mr. Zahia testified that he and his wife are the directors of 2371811 Ontario Inc. It operates as a driving school, and it has three locations across Toronto and a classroom in which they train their driving instructors with a capacity of up to 40 people.

[11] During the testimony of Mr. Zahia he identified several documents that illustrate 2371811 Ontario Inc. required its driving instructors to obey City of Toronto bylaws, which include not providing driving lessons in prohibited areas of the City of Toronto.

[12] Further, he testified that when 2371811 Ontario Inc. hires a new driving instructor, this instructor is driven around the City and shown areas in which driving instructors are restricted from entering. 2371811 Ontario Inc. also requires specific documentation from people who have applied to work as driving instructors. The information required from driving instructors includes:

1. a clean driver’s record from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation;

2. a valid Ontario driver’s licence and a driver’s abstract;

3. proof of the driving instructor’s insurance and car ownership; and

4. proof that the applying driving instructor graduated at the top of their driving school class.

[13] Mr. Zahia also testified that 2371811 Ontario Inc. requests drivers’ abstracts annually from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation for each driving instructor. Mr. Zahia stated that 2371811 Ontario Inc. had obtained all of this required information for Mr. Abdulli.

[14] Mr. Zahia also testified that the drivers hired by 2371811 Ontario Inc. receive a one-page document entitled “Driving Instructor Restricted Areas and Conduct Acknowledgement” which refers to the Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 545, 545-15 at the top of the document and specifically lists the areas where instructors are prohibited from driving. The first point on this document which summarizes the areas where driving instructors are prohibited from driving is “any public park in the City of Toronto”. This document also states that “In the event of court dates or fines resulting from such violations, the sub-contractor is responsible for addressing them personally”.

[15] Mr. Manoukian submitted copies of a “Driving Instructor Restricted Areas and Conduct Acknowledgement” document that Mr. Abdulli has signed for the last three years (2024, 2025 and 2026). These documents with Mr. Abdulli’s signature were marked as Exhibit 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At the bottom of the document above Mr. Abdulli’s signature, the document states “I agree to comply with these restrictions and understand that violations may result in disciplinary action, fines or termination”.

[16] Mr. Zahia stated that 2371811 Ontario Inc. has a meeting at the beginning of each year with its driving instructors in the office classroom to make sure all its driving instructors documents are valid. If a driving instructor is unable to attend this meeting, Mr. Zahia meets with the applying driving instructor later and ensures that their documents are valid. Mr. Abdulli confirmed that all Mr. Abdulli’s documents were up to date.

[17] Mr. Zahia also testified that there are 30 driving instructors at the St. Clair office address. He stated that 2371811 Ontario Inc. has several ways of communicating information to their driving instructors including:

1. a meeting at the beginning of the year: Mr. Zahid stated that on January 30, 2025, there was a meeting to discuss boundaries i.e. where driving instructors could and could not drive. This meeting was held three months before the charge was laid against 2371811 Ontario Inc.;

2. a WhatsApp chat group where driving instructors could exchange information;

3. a meeting with the driving instructors every three months.

[18] Mr. Zahia also pointed out that 23718111 Ontario Inc. requests drivers’ abstracts from the Ministry of Transportation which show driver’s convictions and discharges. Drivers’ abstracts for Mr. Abdulli dated Oct. 31, 2022 and January 24, 2025 were marked as Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5, respectively. Mr. Zahia stated that these documents do not include any convictions, discharges or other actions regarding Mr. Abdulli. The document, however, states that Mr. Abdulli requires corrective lens to drive.

[19] During the hearing, Mr. Zahia explained that if a driving instructor is charged with an offence, a Director meets with the driving instructor. When a driver is charged a second time, the driver is suspended for seven days. If a driving instructor is charged a third time, he is fired. Mr. Zahia stated that the driving instructors also have access to a WhatsApp group to exchange work-related information.

[20] Mr. Zahia explained that 2371811 Ontario Inc. holds various meetings every 30 to 45 days with driving instructors to discuss their responsibilities and boundaries, including restricted areas such as city parks, city schools, playgrounds and community centres.

[21] When Mr. Manoukian asked Mr. Zahia if he questioned the driving instructor as to why he went to Earl Bales Park, Mr. Zahia stated that Mr. Abdulli “knew very well” that Earl Bales Park was a prohibited area but that Mr. Abdulli had told him that he had to go to the washroom. Mr. Zahia testified that Mr. Abdulli admitted that he had made a mistake. As a result of this incident, Mr. Zahia gave Mr. Abdulli a warning. Mr. Zahia then explained that Mr. Abdulli only had one kidney and, therefore, needed to find a washroom urgently on this date.

[22] Mr. Zahia also pointed out that each driving instructor plans their own route.

Cross Examination of Mr. Zahia

[23] The Prosecutor asked Mr. Zahia whether the driving abstracts indicate that a driving instructor has been charged and/or convicted of not adhering to municipal bylaws. Mr. Zahia indicated that the drivers’ abstracts from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation do not cover municipal bylaws.

[24] The Prosecutor inquired as to how many meetings Mr. Zahia has had with Mr. Abdulli. Mr. Zahia stated that he has had five or six meetings with Mr. Abdulli annually and thirty-seven to forty meetings in total with Mr. Abdulli since Mr. Abdulli was hired. Mr. Zahia testified that he meets with each driving instructor in January, before March break, in September and in December. In these meetings, Mr. Zahia testified that he discusses problems, bylaws, insurance and safety.

[25] The Prosecutor also asked Mr. Zahia which topics the driving instructors discuss on WhatsApp. Mr. Zahia indicated that the drivers mostly exchange information about the drive test centre.

[26] The Prosecutor asked Mr. Zahia what happens when a driving instructor is hired. Mr. Zahia indicated that when a driving instructor is hired 2371811 Ontario Inc. makes sure their record is clear by checking their abstract as well as verifying their car is insured and that ownership documents are in order. In addition, the applicants are asked for their City of Toronto licence. The processes are then explained to the newly hired driving instructor and someone from the Company drives around with the driving instructor to the restricted areas. Every thirty to forty days the management talks to the instructors about new information that they should know.

[27] Mr. Zahia explained that every year a meeting is held in the classroom with the driving instructors who bring their documents. Topics discussed at this meeting include bylaws and safety. Mr. Zahia stated that if a driving instructor does not attend this meeting he meets with them later and ensures that their licences are up to date.

Testimony of Officer Boulrice

[28] Mr. Manoukian objected to Officer Boulrice being called a witness and claimed that the Officer’s testimony would be tainted because the Officer was in the courtroom when Mr. Zahia testified. The Prosecutor responded that he was the investigating officer and it was appropriate for him to be in the courtroom. I agreed with the Prosecutor and ruled that the Officer could testify.

[29] Officer Bruce Boulrice, badge number 6129, testified that he investigated this matter on May 10, 2025. He stated that he saw the driving school car, a Toyota Corolla, with an All Star Driving school sign, leave Bathurst St. and enter the park. He observed it backing into a parking spot in the Earl Bales Park parking lot.

[30] The Officer asked Mr. Abdulli for his driver’s licence, his city licence and insurance and confirmed his identification. The Officer also asked for the licence of the other person in the car who was in the driver’s seat, and noted that the driver was a G1 driver. The Officer stated that Mr. Abdulli was in the passenger seat of the vehicle. The Officer told Mr. Abdulli that he should be driving, since it is a restricted zone and there were children in the park.

[31] The Officer showed Mr. Abdulli a map of the restricted area and issued a provincial offences notice for giving instruction in the park.

[32] The Officer testified that Mr. Abdulli told him that he was in the park to use the washroom. The Office testified that he saw Mr. Abdulli leaving the park but did not observe Mr. Abdulli going to the washroom.

Cross Examination of Officer Boulrice

[33] Mr. Manoukian asked the Officer if he was certain that he saw the student driving and if the Officer knew if the student drove out the park. The Officer confirmed that he saw the student driving when Mr. Abdulli and the student parked in the parking lot in the park but he did not know whether the student or Mr. Abdulli drove out of the park.

Defendant’s Submissions:

[34] Mr. Manoukian stated that the offences with which 2371811 Ontario Inc. is charged are strict liability offences.

[35] Mr. Manoukian emphasized that 2371811 Ontario Inc. did undertake initiatives to ensure that their drivers’ actions did not contravene any municipal bylaws, including Municipal Code 545. He referred to the Driving Instructor Restricted Areas and Conduct Acknowledgement form and noted that 2371811 Ontario Inc. provides this document to all its driving instructors when they start working for 2371811 Ontario Inc. and that 2371811 Ontario Inc. requires this form to be signed by all its driving instructors and dated. He noted that this form had been signed by Mr. Abdulli most recently on January 2, 2026.

[36] Mr. Manoukian also emphasised that 2371811 Ontario Inc. requests drivers’ abstracts for each of its driving instructors each year from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. In addition, 2371811 Ontario Inc. has a WhatsApp account where driving instructors can exchange information and hold periodic meetings with other driving instructors.

[37] Mr. Manoukian noted that Officer Boulrice testified that he did not see Mr. Abdulli leave Eral Bales Park and did not know whether Mr. Abdulli or the student drove out of the park.

[38] Mr. Manoukian emphasized that 2371811 Ontario Inc. had taken actions to ensure their driving instructors would adhere to municipal bylaws by holding frequent meetings with driving instructors, issuing documents that outlined prohibited areas and requiring driving instructors to sign these documents annually as well as creating a WhatsApp account for driving instructors to exchange information. In addition, he pointed out that 2371811 Ontario Inc. requests drivers’ abstracts from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation annually.

[39] Mr. Manoukian stated that since 2371811 Ontario Inc. had undertaken all these initiatives to ensure that its driving instructors comply with municipal bylaws, which include specifically prohibiting driving instructors from driving in City of Toronto public parks, the defendant has established a due diligence defence and the charges should be dismissed.

Prosecutor’s Submissions:

[40] The Prosecutor stated that Mr. Zahia used the word “usually” when stating that documents outlining prohibited areas in which driving instructors were not permitted to drive were given to 2371811 Ontario Inc. driving instructors. Moreover, Mr. Zahia could not confirm if driving instructors were provided with a map to show the areas in which they were prohibited to drive.

[41] The Prosecutor pointed out that Mr. Zahia stated that 2371811 Ontario Inc. held meetings to brief its driving instructors on various issues including areas where driving instructors were prohibited to drive. She noted, however, that Mr. Zahia could not provide the last date of such a meeting with Mr. Abdulli. She noted that Mr. Zahia’s testimony was very “vague” with respect to details about such meetings.

[42] The Prosecutor also noted that the student was sitting in the passenger’s seat when the Officer stopped Mr. Abdulli’s car in Earl Bales Park, which gave the impression that Mr. Abdulli was giving a lesson in the park.

[43] She noted that the Officer was a witness to Mr. Abdulli being in his car with a driving school student in a prohibited area. She noted that the defence of due diligence on a balance of probabilities was not proven.

Reply:

[44] Mr. Manukian maintained that the documents, the frequent meetings with driving instructors and the WhatsApp group for driving instructors ensure that 2371811 Ontario Inc. has an adequate communications system to ensure its driving instructors were aware of prohibited areas and actions.

ANALYSIS:

ISSUES:

[45] The following are the relevant issues in this matter:

(i) Has the identity of the defendant been established?

(ii) Has the Prosecutor established that Chapter 545, Licencing, Section 15A of the Toronto Municipal Code applies?

(iii) Has the Prosecutor proven the actus reus of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt?

(iv) Has the Defendant established a due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities?

Establishing the Identity of the Defendant:

[46] 2371811 Ontario Inc. has been identified as the driving school company for which Mr. Abduli worked as a driving instructor. Mr. Abdulli was identified by Officer Boulrice when he conducted a traffic stop in Earls Bales Park on May 10, 2026. The Officer was able to determine Mr. Abdulli’s identity because he requested Mr. Abdulli’s drivers’ licence, his city licence (instructor licence), as well proof of insurance. Mr. Abdulli produced all three documents. The Officer compared the photo on the driver’s licence to the person in the Toyota Corolla that he stopped and confirmed that it was the same person.

[47] Mr. Zahia’s testimony confirmed that M. Abdulli worked for 2371811 Ontario Inc. as the driving instructor and that he was charged by Officer Boulrice on May 10, 2025.

[48] I am satisfied that the Agreed Set of Facts acknowledges the identity of the defendant as well.

[49] Officer Boulrice’s testimony was very credible. He gave a very detailed account of stopping Mr. Abdulli in Earl Bales Park. He confirmed the identify of Mr. Abdulli by asking for his driver’s licence, his instructor’s licence and his proof of insurance. Officer Boulrice observed that Mr. Abdulli was a passenger and the G1 student was seen driving the Toyota Corolla with the Triple A All Star signage on the roof of the car.

[50] Further, the Agreed Set of Facts corroborates Officer Boulrice’s testimony in this regard. I am satisfied that the actus reus of this offence has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

[51] As such, I am satisfied that the actus reus of the charges before me, namely that Mr. Abdulli was a driving instructor working for 2371811 Ontario Inc. entered a restricted area in the City of Toronto, namely a public park in the car in which he provides lessons with his student behind the wheel.

Has the Defendant Established a Due Diligence Defence on a Balance of Probabilities

[52] In the leading case of R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City) [1978] 2 SRC 1299 at page 1325-1326, Dickson J. described the three categories of offences as follows:

1. Offences in which mens rea, consisting of some positive state of mind such as intent, knowledge or recklessness, must be proven by the prosecution either as an inference from the nature of the act committed, or by additional evidence.

2. Offences in which there is no necessity for the prosecution to prove the existence of mens rea; the doing of the prohibited act prima facie imports the offence, leaving it open for the accused to avoid liability by proving that he took all reasonable care. This involves consideration of what a reasonable man would have done in the circumstances. The defence will be available if the accused reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which if true would render the act or omission innocent, or if he took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event. These offences may properly be called offences of strict liability…

3. Offences of absolute liability where it is not open to the accused to exculpate himself by showing that he was free of fault.

[53] As part of my consideration of whether the defendant can establish, on a balance of probabilities, that it took all reasonable care to avoid the event, I have considered the credibility of Mr. Zahia.

[54] In assessing his credibility, I am relying on the judgment of Cory, J. in R. v. W.(D), 1991, CanLII 93(SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R..742, where he held:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the evidence 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.

[55] I have considered the evidence carefully. I found his answers to be highly credible. He provided detailed and thoughtful evidence both in his evidence in chief and during his cross-examination, and he was not shaken or hesitant during cross-examination.

[56] I accept as true his detailed account of how 2371811 Ontario Inc. educates and trains its driving instructors and informs them of restricted areas by driving them to those locations and establishing their conduct through documentation signed annually and entitled “Driving Instructor Restricted Areas and Conduct Acknowledgement” as well as through frequent meetings and enabling driving instructors to exchange information though a WhatsApp account. In addition, numerous education meetings are held during the year for its driving instructors. Mr. Abdulli had signed this document in 2024, 2025 and 2026.

[57] The defendant provided a detailed account of the other information that the defendant provides its drivers who are contracted to provide their services. 2371811 Ontario Inc. provides information to its driving instructors on relevant bylaws and holds meetings for driving instructors to exchange information.

[58] The defendant has established that it continually monitors its driving instructors through requesting documents from the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. It has proven that it monitors its driving instructors on an annual basis. Moreover, its instructors are disciplined for non-compliance which can result in termination. In this instance, Mr. Abdulli received a warning.

[59] The Prosecutor referred to Mr. Zahia ’s information about how 2371811 Ontario Inc. informs its driving instructors as “vague” and stated that 2371811 Ontario Inc. should have a map to inform its driving instructors about the areas where driving instructors are prohibited to give driving instructions. According to the “Driving Instructor Restricted Areas & Conduct Acknowledgement” document, however, it is very clear that driving instructors are not permitted in any public park in the City of Toronto. This is the first point under the “Driving Instructor Restricted Areas & Conduct Acknowledgement” document. Public parks are large, very distinctive and bear prominent signage, and thus I find that an additional map of the same is not required.

[60] The defendant is not required to meet a standard of perfection to establish that it took all reasonable steps to avoid the event. Rather, the defendant’s conduct must be assessed against that of a reasonable person in similar circumstances, see Levis (City) v. Tetreault (City), 2006 SCC 12, [2006] 1 SCR 420at paragraph 15.

[61] I find that the defendant has established a due diligence defence on a balance of probabilities.

ORDER

[62] For the reasons noted, the court finds that the defendant is not guilty.

Released: August 17, 2026

Signed: Justice of the Peace Beverly Brooks