ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE KING (CITY OF TORONTO)
— AND —
ESTATE OF IVAN RUMAN AND MARGITA RUMAN
Before Justice of the Peace Beverly Brooks
Heard on April 29, 2026 and June 8, 2026
Reasons for Judgment released on August 17, 2026
R. Hooshmand Counsel for the Prosecution
P. Ruman Agent for Margita Ruman
JUSTICE OF THE PEACE BROOKS:
[1] I conducted this Part III trial under the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 489 Turfgrass and Prohibited Plants and under Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 548 Littering and Dumping on April 29, 2026 and on June 8, 2026 in Toronto.
[2] Ivan Ruman is the late husband of Margita Ruman. Peter Ruman, the son and agent for Margita Ruman, stated that there is no entity with the name of the Estate of Ivan Ruman but that he and his mother were representing his father.
[3] Mr. Ruman told the court that the defendant, his mother, Margita Ruman, was willing to proceed with the hearing even though neither he nor his mother had reviewed the disclosure. The court clerk confirmed that information as to how to request disclosure had been provided to the defendant and her agent. Mr. Ruman stated that although the defendants have not requested disclosure, he and his mother “have seen some of it” and that he and his mother did not need to review it.
[4] Mr. Ruman stated, on behalf of the Estate of Ivan Ruman and his mother, Margarita Ruman, that neither defendant had any objections to the two charges proceeding together in the same trial.
[5] The Estate of Ivan Ruman was charged as follows:
(i) On or about the 22nd day of August 2025, at 34 Downing Street in the City of Toronto, did commit the offence of being the owner or occupant, did fail to cut turfgrass when height length exceeds 20 centimetres, contrary to Chapter 489 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, as amended Section 489-2(A).
(ii) On or about the 22nd day of August 2025, at 34 Downing Street in the City of Toronto, did commit the offence of being the owner of land on which refuse has been thrown, placed, dumped or deposited, failed to clean and clear the refuse from the said land, contrary to Chapter 548 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code as amended Section 548-5.
[6] Margita Ruman was charged as follows:
(iii) On or about the 22nd day of August 2025, at 34 Downing Street in the City of Toronto, did commit the offence of being the owner or occupant, did fail to cut turfgrass when height length exceeds 20 centimetres, contrary to Chapter 489 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, as amended Section 489-2(A).
(iv) On or about the 22nd day of August 2025, at 34 Downing Street in the City of Toronto, did commit the offence of being the owner of land on which refuse has been thrown, placed, dumped or deposited, failed to clean and clear the refuse from the said land, contrary to Chapter 548 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, as amended Section 548-5.
[7] A plea of not guilty was entered for all charges on behalf of both defendants by Mr. Ruman, as he indicated that he and his mother are representing his late father and because he was acting as an agent for his mother, Margita Ruman. I conducted a trial in this matter. I am satisfied that these are strict liability offences.
PROSECUTION’S EVIDENCE:
Background:
[8] The Prosecutor’s evidence is mainly based on the testimony of Officer Tony Martino, Badge Number 141, who has worked for the City of Toronto for twenty-two years as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer. The Prosecutor also relied on the photos of 34 Downing Street taken by Officer Martino with his work-issued cell phone.
[9] In addition, the Prosecutor relied on provisions of the Toronto Municipal Code, specifically Chapter 489 Section 2(A) which requires that property occupants and owners cut their grass whenever the height of the grass exceeds 20 centimeters. A certified copy of the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 489, Turfgrass and Prohibited Weeds, dated January 6, 2022, was presented by the Prosecutor.
[10] The Prosecutor provided the definition of “turfgrass” from the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 489, Turfgrass and Prohibited Weeds as “ground cover of various perennial grass grown on lawns of a type that forms a dense uniform turf if mown”.
[11] The Prosecutor stated that this bylaw contains the charging section 489-2(A) which requires residents to cut their grass when the height of the grass is greater than 20 centimeters in height or length. The bylaw states that “The owner or occupant of private land shall cut the turfgrass on their property whenever the growth of the turfgrass exceeds 20 centimeters in height or length.”
[12] The Prosecutor also provided a certified copy of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 548 Littering and Dumping, dated September 7, 2022. The definition of litter includes “debris, junk or specific effluent belonging to or associated with a house or household”, “inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts or accessories” or “any other unused or useable material that by reason of its state, condition or excessive accumulation appears to be…cast aside, discarded or banned”, “be worthless, useless or of no particular value” or “be used up, expended or worn our in whole or in part”. Chapter 548.5 requires that the “owner of land on which waste has been thrown, placed, dumped or disposed shall immediately clean and clear the waste from the land”.
[13] In addition, the Prosecutor presented the following documents to the court, asked that they be marked as exhibits and relied on them as evidence:
Evidence Act Notice (Exhibit 1) which includes a cover page, a chart of the evidence and a list of the documents relied upon by the prosecution. The Evidence Act Notice also includes the charge, is dated August 22, 2025, and was signed on September 12, 2025 by Nicole Richardson, Municipal Licencing and Standard Division, Court Liaison Unit, City of Toronto. The Evidence Act Notice includes the Affidavit of Service which indicates that on October 2, 2025, this Evidence Act Notice was mailed by registered mail to the defendants’ address at 34 Downing Street in the City of Toronto. The Evidence Act Notice was sworn on October 6, 2025. The Evidence Act Notice states the charge, includes a summons and it bears a commissioning stamp.
a certified copy of the Land Title certificate document (Exhibit 2) from the Ministry of Public and Business Service Delivery, Service Ontario, which verifies that the property at 34 Downing Street is owned by the defendants, Margita Ruman and the Estate of Ivan Ruman, and is signed by the representative for the Land Registry Office. This document includes a property summary, a legal description of the property, the transfer information from the previous owner and lists Margita Ruman and the estate of Ivan Ruman as the owners. It is certified to be a true copy of 07547-0442 land title and it is recorded on September 5, 2025.
thirteen photos (Exhibit 3A) taken from June 10, 2025 to August 22, 2025 and dated by Officer Martino with his work-issued cell phone of the turfgrass, weeds and various plastic and metal items on the property at 34 Downing Street. Officer Martino provided a description for many of these photos during his testimony. The descriptions of the photos are provided in this decision under the section which details Officer Martino’s testimony.
4an additional fifty-two photos (Exhibit 3B) (16 photos plus 36 photos) of 34 Downing Street taken and dated from June 10, 2025 to August 22, 2025 by Officer Martino. These photos were marked as Exhibit 3B. The Officer provided descriptions for many of these photos. The descriptions of the photos are provided in this decision under the summary of Officer Martino’s testimony.
5Four Notices of Violation (Exhibit 4) that were issued to the defendants.
Testimony of Officer Tony Martino
[14] Officer Martino testified that he works for the City of Toronto in Bylaw Enforcement and has been employed by the City of Toronto in this capacity for 28 years. He conducted an investigation into this matter, shortly after he inspected the property at 34 Downing Street on June 10, 2025. The Officer asked for permission to consult his notes and the court gave him permission to do so to refresh his memory.
[15] The Officer testified that he investigated this matter because he received the file from the City on June 6, 2025. On June 10, 2025, at approximately 12:10 PM, he drove to 34 Downing Street. He observed “long grass and weeds…throughout the yards and boulevard over 20 centimetres”. He knocked on the door but there was no answer. He issued the Notices of Violation for the offences on June 10, 2025 indicating that the residents had violated city bylaws. He posted these Notices of Violation on the front door of 34 Downing Street on June 11, 2025.
[16] When the Officer returned to 34 Downing Street West on June 11, 2025, at 7:30 AM, he noted that the turfgrass and prohibited plants had not been cut or removed. He placarded the four Notices of Violation on the front door of the residence to inform the occupants that they had violated City of Toronto bylaws. He then proceeded to take photos of the property with his work-issued cell phone.
[17] On June 25, 2025, at 7:00 AM, the Officer attended 34 Downing Street. He observed that the turfgrass and prohibited plants had not been removed. The Notices of Violation were still posted on the front door of the residence. He knocked on the front and side doors but there was no answer.
[18] The Officer testified that after his initial visit on June 10, 2025, his second visit on June 11, 2025 and his third visit on June 25, 2025, he then returned to the property on August 22, 2025, at approximately 7:50 AM. He again knocked on the front and side doors but there was no answer. He saw that the residents had not cut the grass or removed the prohibited plants or refuse in the yard. He took photographs and submitted his court brief. He noted that the grass was higher than the height of his knees and that his height was 6 feet one inch. He again took photos of the turfgrass and the refuse in the yard.
[19] The Prosecutor had the Officer identify 3 photos (Exhibit 3). The Officer had he had taken them with his work-issued cell phone during his inspections of 34 Downing Street and the Officer provided descriptions for these photos:
a photo of the front of property with turfgrass and weeds at 34 Downing Street (Photo 1);
a photo of the dwelling at 34 Downing Street which shows the turfgrass and weeds on the property (Photo 2);
a photo of the dwelling and driveway at 34 Downing Street with the turfgrass and weeds over 20 centimeters in height (8 inches) (Photo 3);
the entrance to the front of the dwelling at 34 Downing Street which shows the turfgrass and weeds over 20 centimeters in height (8 inches) throughout the side and front of the property (Photo 4);
the backyard of the residence showing the turfgrass and prohibited plants over 20 centimeters in height (8 inches) (Photo 5);
the front entrance of 34 Downing Street showing the Notices of Violation that Officer Martino had placed on the front door as well as discarded papers, newspapers and other paper products (Photo 6);
the front lawn of 34 Downing Street with turfgrass and weeds over 20 centimeters in height (8 inches) in height (Photo 7);
the side yard of the property at 34 Downing Street with turfgrass and weeds over 20 centimeters in height (8 inches) as well as a plastic chair and beer cans, with the plants overgrowing the chair (Photo 8);
the front door of 34 Downing on August 22, 2025, which shows only one Notice of Violation nailed to the door (During his testimony, the Officer stated that the other three Notices of Violation which he had nailed to the door had been removed.) (Photo 9);
the residence at 34 Downing Street from the driveway with turfgrass, weeds and prohibited plants over 20 centimeters in height (8 inches) on August 22, 2025 (Photo 10);
the front entrance of 34 Downing Street with turfgrass, weeds and prohibited plants over 20 centimeters in height (8 inches) (Photo 11);
the front yard of the property at 34 Downing Street with turfgrass and weeds over 20 centimeters in height (8 inches) as well as a metal frame of a box (Photo 12);
the front yard of 34 Downing Street on August 22, 2025, showing the density of the turfgrass and the prohibited plants as well as discarded bottles and cans on the ground (Photo 13).
[20] The Prosecutor then presented to Officer Martino sixteen photos of 34 Downing Street taken from June 10, 2025 to August 22, 2025 by Officer Martino with his work-issued cell phone. These photos were marked as Exhibit 3B. The Officer provided descriptions for some of these photos which addressed the waste issue including:
the side of the property at 34 Downing Street showing turfgrass and prohibited plants as well as vehicle parts, old rotors, exhaust system parts, an old sign and miscellaneous metal parts (Photo 1);
rusted car parts, rotors, metal parts and springs with grass covering most of the items (Photo 2);
automotive parts and metal, toolbox, springs and poles made out of aluminum steel (Photo 3);
metal grates, pots, plastic and metal items along the side of the dwelling (Photo 4);
the backyard of 34 Downing Street with grates, metal, plastic chairs, tubs, ladder, wood and shelving (Photo 5);
numerous garbage bins piled up, plastic chairs, discarded shelves, pots and plastic and metal items on the ground (Photo 6);
vehicles parts under a tree at 34 Downing Street which in the Officer’s words looked like a “muffler, catalytic converter and some metal grating” on June 10, 2025 (Photo 7);
metal parts, beer cans, grates, discarded metal parts and a steel rim tire at the side of the residence at 34 Downing Street on June 10, 2025 (Photo 8);
a continuation of “waste and debris” as well as “broken and discarded items at 34 Downing Street (Photo 9);
a close up of a metal wheel, metal rims and garbage bags on June 10, 2025 at 34 Downing Street (Photo 10);
wheel rims, metal and plastic items and grates that were discarded at the side of the residence at 34 Downing Street on June 10, 2025 (Photo 11);
wood, metal and plastic items at the side of the residence at 34 Downing Street on June 10, 2025 (Photo 12);
metal framing from a portable tent as well as metal and plastic discarded items which are rusted and overgrown with weeds (Photo 13);
waste and debris at 34 Downing Street with plants and vegetation “going through it” (Photo 14);
same photo as Photo 14 (Photo 15);
same photo as Photo 14 (Photo 16);
[21] The prosecutor then presented 36 photos and asked Officer Martino to provide descriptions for these photos. The Officer provided the following descriptions:
a vehicle battery which has been overgrown by grass and weeds against the wall of the dwelling on June 25, 2025 (Photo 6 of 36);
the side of the dwelling adjacent to the garage (Photo 10 of 36);
empty beer cans overgrown with grass against the side of the property on June 25, 2025 (Photo 13 of 36);
rusted vehicle rotors, a lamp stand, chairs, wood and metal items in the back yard (Photo 17 of 36);
empty plastic recycling bins at the rear of the property (Photo 20 of 36);
a metal frame for a tent and long grass and weeds which had overgrown this item on August 22, 2025 (Photo 21 of 36);
metal and discarded items in a basket, a recycling bin and metals items at the side of the property, including metal rotors and car parts on August 22, 2025 (Photo 25 of 36);
a tarp, discarded metal, wood and plastic items at the side of the dwelling with weeds overgrowing these items on August 22, 2025 (Photo 27 of 36);
metal pipes, a radiator, wheel rims, metal pipes, wheel rims and plastic items overgrown by weeds at the side of the property on August 22, 2025 (Photo 28 of 36);
the front of the residence at 34 Downing Street with discarded magazines and newspapers in the foreground with beer cans and wine bottles (Photo 32 of 36);
the front steps of the residence of 34 Downing Street with beer cans, wine bottles and newspapers on the porch of the property (Photo 33 of 36);
the side of the yard with beer cans and wine bottles “strewn on the floor of the property” on August 22, 2025 (Photo 34 of 36);
the entrance walkway to the residence with overgrown weeds and a shopping cart with miscellaneous metal items in it on August 22, 2025 (Photo 35 of 36); and
the entrance walkway on August 22, 2025 to the front door of the residence at 34 Downing Street which Officer Martino described as metal and wood items “overgrown with weeds” (Photo 36 of 36).
During his testimony about the photographs, the Officer commented that it was difficult to walk through the property because of the height of the turfgrass and weeds.
Officer Martino stated that the defendants had not complied with the Notices of Violation as they had not cut the turfgrass or removed the waste and debris.
Officer Martino also testified that there were four Notices of Violation issued in total -- a Notice of Violation for the turfgrass and a Notice of Violation for the waste and there were two owners of the property at 34 Downing Street so four Notices of Violation were issued in total.
When Officer Martino was asked by the Prosecutor how he knew that the turfgrass was over 20 centimeters high, the Officer stated that the grass was “over my knees” and then said that his height was 6 feet 1 inch.
Cross Examination of Officer Martino by the Agent of the Defendants
26Mr. Ruman asked the Officer if he had a measuring tape with him when he was at 34 Downing Street. The Officer confirmed that he did have a measuring tape. The Officer, however, did not respond when Mr. Ruman asked him if he used it to measure the grass.
27Mr. Ruman also asked the Officer if he had an education in biology and whether he could identify individual plants. The Officer responded that he did not have an education in biology.
28Mr. Ruman asked the Officer why he was at his property for an hour. The Officer responded that he was inspecting the property and making his notes. He added that he was putting his notes and photographs into the system, which takes time.
29During his cross examination of the Officer, Mr. Ruman made the point that the items in the yard could be recyclable items or valuable scrap rather than garbage. Officer Martino responded (transcript at page 52) as follows:
“It’s not monetary value. When the property…the garbage is left there, as per the photographs show, over a period of time when long grass and weeds, or turfgrass and weeds, have grown through it. And there’s rust and they’re torn apart or broken items, it’s considered waste and debris. That’s how we evaluate it.”
30Mr. Ruman asked whether the Officer had the authority to go into backyards and inside houses to search for debris and waste. The Officer stated that under the City of Toronto Act he has the authority to walk onto property at any time but does not have authority to go inside dwellings unless invited.
31Several other questions were asked by Mr. Ruman but they were not found to be relevant to the matters before the court.
Defence’s Evidence:
32Mr. Ruman testified that since the Ontario provincial government had banned pesticides over a decade ago, homeowners have been limited with respect the measures that they can take to prevent weeds from growing on their lawns. He added that there is “no way to prevent weeds from taking over the lawn…”
33Mr. Ruman noted that the City had repaved Harjolyn Drive which is on the west side of their property and made the ditches deeper and steeper, making it more difficult to maintain the ditches.
34In addition, he also noted that the utility companies have dug up holes and then “put some dirt down” making the ground uneven and more difficult to maintain. For the last 10 years, the ground has been very uneven.
35Mr. Ruman added climate change as another factor that was creating a challenge for property owners and making it difficult for them to prevent weed infestation.
36Mr. Ruman claimed that the ditches surrounding 34 Downing Street are city property and testified that in 2024 he had spoken to the Office of Councillor Amber Morley about the maintaining the ditches and was told that the City of Toronto would be doing nothing about it. He testified that he had also spoken to the Office of Councillor Amber Morley again in 2025 but was told that the City did not plan to take any action.
37Mr. Ruman claimed that the debris is recycling material and that it is “not bothering anyone” or “causing anyone else’s property to go down”. He also claimed that what Officer Martino had called “debris” could not be seen from the street.
38He stated that the municipal government does not have authority to enter the side or back yard of city residences, only the front yard.
Cross Examination by the Prosecutor
39The Prosecutor questioned Mr. Ruman about his statement that some of the property in the photos belonged to his mother and the estate of his father and the other half belonged to the City. The Prosecutor stated that most houses have city property in front of them but it is the homeowners’ or occupants’ responsibility to keep the grass on city property under 20 centimetres. She said that “It’s always been this way”.
40She referred to Mr. Ruman’s comment that roughly half of the property in the photos is the defendants’ property and the other half is the City of Toronto’s property but she noted that the defendants did not have any maps to show the court which half belongs to the defendant and which half belongs to the City.
41Mr. Ruman responded that he did not have a survey, but he pointed to the red bushes in the photos and said that the red bushes are close to the property line. He added that the red bushes are on City property. Mr. Roman insisted that the south side of the property, where the door to the house is located, has a pole that belongs to Ontario Hydro, and hedges on City property. He said that maintaining those hedges is “our obligation” or he “could take them out if I wanted to”. He does not know who planted them but he insisted that they are on City property.
42The Prosecutor asked Mr. Ruman whether he understood that the notices were for the defendants and whether he understood what the defendants were required to do which was to remove the debris. Mr. Ruman responded by questioning whether a city officer has jurisdiction over back and side yards. Later in his testimony, however, he admitted knowledge of the notices. When he was asked about the notice dated August 25, 2025, which was left on the door, he replied, “Yeah, basically I think they’re saying that we did not comply. This was dated August 25. That’s the fourth time I think that he was there.”
43The Prosecutor asked about the length of time the items that were referred to as “debris” by the Officer stay in the yard. Mr. Ruman replied that he had to have a large enough load to take to recycling centres to make it financially viable. He pointed to the reduction in the number of Beer Stores and stated that he had to drive further to find recycling centers at which to drop off bottles.
Prosecutor’s Submission:
44The Prosecutor emphasized that Officer Martino has many years of work experience with respect to enforcing City bylaws. She summarized the intensive investigation process that Officer Martino had followed both before and after issuing the Notices of Violation to the defendants. She noted that the Officer had attended 34 Downing Street four times (June 10, 2025, June 11, 2025, June 25, 2025 and August 22, 2025). She stated that the Officer had taken numerous photos, issued Notices of Violation to the defendants and knocked on their door every time that he had attended 34 Downing Street to notify the defendants about the bylaws that they were charged with violating. The Prosecutor noted that the Officer had testified in great detail about his numerous visits to 34 Downing Street and about the photos that he had taken.
45The Prosecutor emphasized that the turfgrass in the photos taken by Officer Martino was so long there was no need to measure it but rather that if one viewed the photos they could see that the turfgrass was longer than 20 centimeters. Moreover, the Officer’s reference to his height and that the turfgrass was up to his knees was proof that the turfgrass was greater than 20 centimeters in height and that there was no need to measure the height of the turfgrass with a measuring tape.
46The Prosecutor maintained that an education in biology was not necessary to identify weeds in the yard.
47The Prosecutor emphasized that City of Toronto Chapter 489 Section 2A was quite clear that when the height of the turfgrass was greater than 20 centimeters, residents are required to cut their grass. She noted that other residents cut their grass and their weeds and this is expected of the defendants.
48She also pointed out that the scrap metal in the photos is not properly stored and that if debris is on property it is to be immediately removed by the property owner. She read Chapter 489 Subsection 5 which states “the owner of land on which waste has been thrown, placed, dumped or disposed shall immediately clean and clear the waste from the land”. She stated that even if it is the property owners’ objective to make money from the debris, it should be properly stored.
49The Prosecutor also noted that it does not matter if the neighbours make a complaint but rather that every homeowner is to comply with the City bylaws.
50The Prosecutor emphasized that the Planning Act Section 67 allows and authorizes bylaw officers to have access to the side and back yard.
51She again stated the definition of turfgrass that is included in City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 489 Section 2(A).
52She emphasized that every citizen is required to comply with the bylaws and that ignorance of the bylaws is not a valid defence. She added that even if a citizen is not aware of bylaws, the defendants had received Notices of Violation which list the offences and gave the defendants two weeks to take the required action. She added that the defendants, however, had decided to ignore the Notices of Violation.
53The Prosecutor concluded her submission by stating that all essential elements of the charges had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt given the Officer’s testimony, his photos and his descriptions of the photos which depict turfgrass longer than 20 centimetres and debris in the yard at 34 Downing Street. She noted that there is no question regarding identity, time and ownership. She asked for convictions on both charges.
Defence Submissions:
54Mr. Ruman indicated that he was concerned that Officer Martino did not have a measuring tape but rather measured the length of the turfgrass with his lower leg and could claim that the turfgrass on the property at 34 Downing Street was over 20 centimeters in height.
55He questioned what “turfgrass” is and claimed that no one from the City of Toronto had been able to provide him with a definition.
56He maintained that it was difficult to eliminate the weeds in the yard because the government had banned pesticides.
57He claimed that it was challenging to maintain the yard at 34 Downing Street because the City was “making the ditches deeper and steeper”.
58He blamed companies which lay utility pipelines such as Enbridge and Bell for making the ground uneven and the property difficult to maintain.
59He also claimed that “half” of the property in the photographs was City of Toronto property. He stated that the City was shifting the burden of maintenance costs to property owners because the City was not maintaining property that belonged to the City.
60He claimed that what the City was calling “debris” was valuable recycling material.
61He maintained that their neighbours were not taking issue with the debris on the property at 34 Downing Street, that the debris could not be seen from the street and that the condition of his yard was not causing property values to decline. As evidence of this statement, he pointed out that his neighbours were not complaining or erecting fences. He also maintained that the items in the yard cannot be seen from the street.
62He claimed that the City did not have the authority to access his back or side yard.
63He complained that Officer Martino did not have a measuring tape but that he could claim the grass at 34 Downing Street was higher than 20 centimetres.
64He described the charges and fines as a way that the City has of “shaking down” its residents.
65He questioned why the Estate of Ivan Ruman was being charged given that there is no Estate of Ivan Ruman and that his father had passed away seven years ago.
Prosecutor’s Reply
66The Prosecutor pointed out that the bylaw Officer can use any tools available to him to measure the length of the grass.
67The Prosecutor objected to the defendant’s description of the charges as being a “shakedown” as any fine revenue goes to the City of Toronto.
68She submitted that Officer Martino’s testimony, the certified City of Toronto bylaws, the photos of 34 Downing Street from June 10, 2025 to August 22, 2025 taken by Officer Martino and Officer Martino’s description of the images in the photos were evidence that the turfgrass on the property at 34 Downing was higher than 20 centimeters and that debris had been spread over the yard for some time, given that items were rusting and covered by weeds.
69The Prosecutor again noted that “turfgrass” was defined in the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 489 Section 2(A) and stated the definition. She also noted that the definition of “debris” was included in Chapter 548.
70The Prosecutor emphasized that City residents have a responsibility to comply with City bylaws.
71The Prosecutor stated that Officer Martino has had many years of experience with respect to enforcing City bylaws and that the defendant’s assumption that City officers cannot enter the side or backyards of residents is incorrect.
72The Prosecutor pointed out that under Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 548 Littering and Dumping, the “owner of land on which waste has been thrown, placed, dumped or disposed shall immediately clean and clear the waste from the land”.
73The Prosecutor emphasized that under Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 548 Littering and Dumping, the “owner of the land on which waste has been thrown, placed, dumped or disposed shall immediately clean and clear the waste from the land”.
74The Prosecutor noted that the Land Registry document states that the property at 34 Downing Street belongs to Margarita Ruman and the Estate of Ivan Ruman.
Analysis
Issues:
75The following are the relevant issues in this matter:
(a) Has the Prosecutor established that Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 489 Turfgrass and Prohibited Plants and that Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 548.1 and 548.5 Littering and Dumping applies?
(b) If the answer is yes, have the actus reus of each of these offences as charged been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
(c) If the answer is yes, has the defence established a due diligence defence to the charges as laid?
The Bylaw Issue:
76The only certified evidence before the court has been provided by the Prosecutor, who provided the court with a certified copy of the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 458.1 Turfgrass and Prohibited Weeds, and Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 548.1 and Chapter 548.2, Littering and Dumping.
77The court agrees that the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 458.1 Turfgrass and Prohibited Weeds, and Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 548.1 and Chapter 548.2, Littering and Dumping, apply to the matters before the court.
Credibility of Mr. Ruman
78In assessing the credibility of Mr. Ruman, I am relying on the judgement of Cory, J. in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), 1991, CanLll 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 your self 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.
79I have considered his evidence carefully. I found his answers to be evasive. For example, he was very focused in his evidence on how difficult it is to maintain ditches around 43 Downing Street, to avoid answering questions regarding the length of the grass and the number of weeds on the property, despite being shown photos of the same during his cross-examination. He avoided accepting any responsibility and blamed global warming and the lack of pesticides for these issues. When asked about the metal and plastic debris on the property, he changed the subject and started discussing the value of scrape metal.
80I find that Mr. Ruman falls within the third part of the test as set out in W.(D).
Credibility of Officer Martino
81I am relying on R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17 at paragraph 20 when assessing his credulity.
Assessing credibility is not a science. It is very difficult for a trail judge to articulate with precision the complex intermingling of impressions that emerge after watching and listening to witnesses and attempting to reconcile the various versions of events…
82I find Officer Martino’s testimony to be highly credible. He testified that the grass in the yard was above his knees and he is over 6 feet tall. His testimony was clear, and unshaken during cross-examination. I further accept that the photos taken by him provided in Exhibit 3 and 3B are accurate depictions of what he observed when he inspected the property at 34 Downing Street on four separate dates (June 10, 2025, June 11, 2025, June 25, 2025 and August 22, 2025) i.e. that the turfgrass and weeds were more than 20 centimeters in height and that various metal, plastic and car part items were spread over the yard and had been in the yard so for so long that some of them were rusty and overgrown by weeds.
Have the Actus Reus of the Offences Been Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?
83There is no dispute about the ownership of the property at 34 West Downing Street West. The Land Title indicates that the property belongs to the late Ivan Ruman and Margita Ruman.
84I have considered the evidence of Officer Martino very carefully. He inspected the property at 34 Downing Street on four different dates – June 10, 2025, June 11, 2025, June 25, 2025 and August 22, 2025. During his inspections, he took numerous photos of the yard at 34 Downing Street. Most of these photos show long and unmown turfgrass and various metal, paper and plastic items spread over the yard, some of which had been in their current position so long that they are rusty and covered by overgrown weeds.
85I accept as true that Officer Martino examined the property at 34 Downing Street on four separate occasions – June 10, 2025, June 11, 2025, June 25, 2025 and August 22, 2025. He took photos of the property with his work-issued cell phone which resulted in images of that property depicting tall grass and various metal and plastic items which appear to have been in the yard for a long period of time, given that these items are rusty and overgrown by weeds. He issued four Notices of Violation and attempted to speak to the property owners several times when he investigated their property. The defendants have not cut the grass or cleaned up the debris over the tree-month period. (form June 10, 2025 to August 22, 2025) during which the City inspected their property and issued Notices of Violation.
86Based on testimony and photos taken by Officer Martino, I find that the prosecution has established a prima facie case that the defendants have violated these bylaws. I find that the turfgrass on their property at 34 Downing Street is higher than 20 centimeters and that there are metal and plastic items that are rusting and overgrown with weeds throughout the yard.
87As such, I am satisfied that the actus reus of the charges before me, namely that the turfgrass and weeds were more than 20 centimeters in height as the lawn had not been cut for some time and that refuse was spread over the yard and had not been removed in the months following Officer Martino’s first inspection on June 10, 2025.
88According to Section 548.5 of the Toronto Municipal Code which is entitled “Cleaning and Clearing”, “the owner of the land on which waste has been thrown, placed or dumped, shall immediately clean and clear the waste from the land”. Given the testimony of Officer Martino and the photos taken by him of the items in the yard at 34 Downing Street which have not been removed for some time given that they are rusted and/or overgrown with weeds, the defendants have not adhered to Section 548.5 of the Toronto Municipal Code entitled “Cleaning and Clearing”, despite receiving four separate notices.
89I am satisfied that the actus reus of each of these charges has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Have the Defendants Established A Due Diligence Defence?
90In order to establish a due diligence defence, the defendants must establish an honest and reasonable belief in a certain state of facts. In principle, the due diligence defence is that “all reasonable care was taken”, see: R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 1299 and R. v. Sutherland (1990) 1990 CanLII 2442 (NS SCAD), 96 NSR (2d) 271 (CA), as noted by Justice Libman in his work, Libman on Regulatory Offences in Canada, Earlscourt, Update 34 - July 2023 at page 7-2.
91In other words, can the defendant establish that they took all reasonable steps to prevent it?
92I have considered Mr. Ruman’s evidence. He was not able to provide any evidence that he or his mother who reside at 34 Downing Street have made an effort to cut the grass and/or clear away the garbage on their property since they received the four Notices of Violation on June 11, 2025. Moreover, Mr. Ruman has admitted on behalf of the defendants, his mother and late father, to the essential elements of the offence i.e. that his mother has not mown the grass or disposed of the debris in the yard. The reasons presented by him do not constitute a valid defence, and, in fact, corroborate the evidence of Officer Martino.
93The submission made by Mr. Ruman that the items in his yard were valuable recycling material are not credible since if these items were recycling material they would have either been placed in the recycling garbage and removed by the City of Toronto during the regular garbage removal cycle or sold by the defendant.
94Thus, the defendants are unable to establish a due diligence defence because the grass was higher than 20 centimetres for some time since the height of the grass was not reduced to under 20 centimeters during the three-month period that Officer Martino was inspecting the property at 34 Downing Street and none of the garbage in the yard was removed.
95Ms. Ruman did not take the stand in her own defence and offered no other evidence, but relied instead on her son’s testimony and submissions. Thus, I find that Ms. Ruman’s due diligence also fails for the same reasons as that of the late Ivan Ruman.
96The court must keep in mind that it is not enough to believe that the defendant is probably or likely guilty because proof of probable or likely guilt is not proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
97I must also remember that it is nearly impossible to prove anything with absolute certainty and the Prosecution is not required prove its case to the degree of absolute certainty because absolute certainty is a standard of proof that does not exist in law.
98I must also apply the direction from the SCC in R. v. Starr, 2000 SCC 40, [2000] S.C.J. No. 40 at paragraph 242 that "the reasonable doubt standard ... falls much closer to absolute certainty than to proof on a balance of probabilities."
99Finally, I must remember that the reasonable doubt standard is a tough standard, and is tough for good reason. It is because as Justice Cory stated in R. v Lifchus, 1997 CanLII 319 (SCC), [1997] S.C.J. No. 77, at paragraph 13, "[t]he onus resting upon the Crown to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt ... is one of the principal safeguards which seeks to ensure that no innocent person is convicted."
100Nevertheless, the prosecution evidence before me is overwhelming and the evidence of the defence is weak. I find that the defendants did not reduce the height of the turfgrass below 20 centimeters, nor remove any of the garbage in the yard since receiving the Notices of Violation from the City of Toronto on June 11, 2025. The reasons offered for their lack of action to address these matters are not credible. This inaction and indifference have resulted in triggering the breach of bylaws as charged.
ORDER
101For the reasons noted, the defendants are guilty as charged of all the offences.
Released: August 17, 2026
Signed: Justice of the Peace Beverly Brooks