Toronto (City) v. A.A., 2026 ONCJ 54

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

(PROVINCIAL OFFENCES APPEAL COURT)

CITATION: Toronto (City) v. A.A., 2026 ONCJ 54 DATE: 2026 01 30 COURT FILES.: 4860-999-00-8228985Z 4860-999-00-8228982Z

IN THE MATTER OF an appeal under subsection 135 (1) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, as amended

BETWEEN:

CITY OF TORONTO Respondent

— AND —

A.A. Applicant/Appellant

Before: Justice Lori Anne Thomas Heard and Decided on November 25, 2025 Reasons for Judgment released on January 30, 2026

Alina Katsev........................................................................................ Prosecutor for the City Jason Davie .................................................................................... Agent for Applicant A.A.

Thomas J.:

Introduction

1On September 11, 2024, A.A. was charged with: (i) operating a motor vehicle while holding or using a handheld device, and (ii) careless driving under the Highway Traffic Act.¹ He retained Ticket Justice to represent him.

2Ticket Justice did nothing to address the ticket. As a result, on November 14, 2024, A. A. was convicted since he failed to respond to the offence notices. A. A. later sought to appeal his default convictions to this Court. On November 25, 2025, I granted his motion to extend the time to appeal his convictions, granted the appeal, quashed the convictions, and ordered a new trial with these detailed reasons to follow.²

3The sole issue was whether A. A. established that he was convicted through no fault of his own. As these Reasons outline, the evidence overwhelmingly established that A. A. paid for legal representation but received none in any meaningful sense. The agents working for Ticket Justice undertook no substantive steps and provided no competent legal assistance. Furthermore, Adelin Mocanu, a paralegal, continued to act as if he were assisting A. A. after he was suspended. Instead of assisting, Mr. Mocanu misled A. A. about the true status of his matters.

Background and Chronology

4I accept A. A.’s evidence throughout, which was internally consistent and supported by exhibits, as to what occurred.

5On September 11, 2024, A. A. received two tickets under the Part I Provincial Offences Act, one for holding or using a handheld device and one for careless driving.

6By September 25, 2024, A. A. hired Angelo G from Ticket Justice, who used the social media handle trafficticketgone_905angelo with the phone number 416-897-2426. A. A. signed a retainer and paid $2,500 via e-transfer, as instructed by Angelo via text message.³

7The retainer was completed within the 15-day window to dispute the tickets, and A. A. explicitly emphasized that only one day remained in the window.⁴ Requesting a trial could have been done immediately online. However, no one requested a trial or a resolution meeting; as such, A. A. was convicted on a Fail to Respond docket on November 14, 2024. He was penalized with the minimum fines of $400 and $500, plus the victim fine surcharges, for the careless driving and handheld device convictions, respectively.

8In addition, as a result of the handheld device conviction, A. A.’s driver's licence was suspended in December 2024. Immediately upon receiving the Notice of Suspension, he contacted Angelo via text message. But it was Mr. Mocanu who responded, requesting that A. A. sign a document to have the matter rectified.⁵ A. A. reasonably believed that Mr. Mocanu would submit a reopening application. However, this was never done.

9A few days later, when A. A. inquired whether he could lawfully drive notwithstanding his failure to pay the reinstatement fee, Mr. Mocanu advised that the fee need not be paid, and that A. A. was “fine to drive.” Both propositions were wrong in law and materially misleading, as the obligation to pay the reinstatement fee remained, and absent reinstatement, A. A. was not authorized to drive.

10When A. A. received further notices of unpaid fines, Mr. Mocanu continued to mislead him, as evident in the text messages, in Appendix A of the Judgment. Mr. Mocanu told him that the payment notices were “all part of the reopenings we are doing”.

11In January 2025, in response to A. A.’s text requesting the status of his matters, Mr. Mocanu falsely represented in a text message that the reopening had gone through and that they, as in Ticket Justice, were waiting for a trial date to be set. Contrary to Mr. Mocanu’s assertions, there was no documentation in the court file indicating that a reopening had been filed.⁶

12In February 2025, A. A. received another notice regarding his suspension and the amount owing, which Angelo said the Ticket Justice team would investigate. At the same time, A. A. also sent a copy of the Notice to Mr. Mocanu, who responded that it should not have been sent and would be rectified the next business day, March 3, 2025.

13However, on March 3, 2025, in response to a request for an update, Mr. Mocanu claimed he attended court in person to address A. A.’s matter. Again, there was nothing in the court file to indicate any activity in March 2025.

14On March 10, 2025, A. A. expressed frustration that he did not know whether his licence had been suspended. Mr. Mocanu reiterated that “there should be no reason your license [sic] would have been suspended”. This statement was plainly incorrect; his licence would have been suspended for non-payment and for the handheld device conviction. That is because a first-time offender for the handheld device offence will automatically have their licence suspended for 3 days upon sentencing, as per section 78.1(6.2) of the Highway Traffic Act.

15On March 12, 2025, Mr. Mocanu texted that “your licence is not suspended, this will be fully reversed by Monday the latest”. This was not true; the licence remained suspended. When A. A. asked for documented confirmation, Mr. Mocanu said he would pull the information, but ultimately did not follow up.

16The pattern of assurances cannot reasonably be explained as an administrative oversight or minor misunderstanding. I accept that A. A. did not pursue independent remedies because he relied on these assurances.

17Then, on April 7, 2025, A. A. received a further notice stating that his licence was suspended for unpaid fines. This is when Mr. Mocanu requested A. A.’s driver’s licence.⁷ Shortly after receiving the driver's licence, Mr. Mocanu sent a text stating the issue was fixed, and A. A. could drive, as there were no further issues. Yet, when A. A. checked online, his licence was noted as suspended. On April 8, 2025, Mr. Mocanu indicated it was fixed. Later, A. A. confirmed online that his licence was no longer listed as suspended.

18The court file indicates that on April 10, 2025, the fines and outstanding charges were paid at Ontario Service Centre.⁸ This payment explains why the suspension for unpaid fines was lifted.

19A. A. did not pay the fines, nor did he instruct anyone to pay the fines. However, unbeknownst to him, when the unknown person paid the fines, only the suspension was removed, leaving the convictions intact. Yet, Mr. Mocanu’s assertions led A. A. to falsely believe that the matters had been withdrawn or resolved to his favour without convictions.

20It was not until September 2025, when A. A. was informed by his insurance company that his driver’s abstract still had both convictions recorded. A. A. contacted both Angelo and Mr. Mocanu. Angelo said he would investigate but suggested A. A. contact his manager at 416-453-9696, which was Mr. Mocanu’s phone number.

21From September 26, 2025 onward, A. A. communicated only with Mr. Mocanu.⁹ A. A. sent several texts to Mr. Mocanu requesting a confirmation document, but always received responses that it would come later and vague excuses. At one point, A. A. offered to pay a premium price to have the matter given priority attention, but Mr. Mocanu declined, indicating there was no additional fee to provide a confirmation that A. A. was not convicted.

22I accepted A. A.’s evidence that, in addition to the text messages, in September and October 2025, he had had phone calls with Mr. Mocanu, who offered to help fix the issue of the driving abstract reflecting the convictions. The text messages demonstrate that A. A. consistently asked for confirmation that he had no convictions. At the same time, Mr. Mocanu continually promised to provide the non-existent documentation, but, for obvious reasons, failed to do so.

23In October, Mr. Mocanu stated he would retrieve the date when “things were dropped”, but also provided the option for A. A.’s insurance company to contact 437-440-6904 for verification that there were no convictions. A. A. testified that no one could reach the person at the provided number. There was no evidence of how this number was connected to Mr. Mocanu. However, this number was mentioned in another appeal heard on the same day that had an indirect connection to Mr. Mocanu. The parties in that case agreed that the number was associated with a muffin bakery.¹⁰ This underscored the unreliability of Mr. Mocanu's assertions that the information could be verified.

24On October 20, 2025, A. A. requested that Mr. Mocanu contact his insurance company and his father directly. Further, A. A. stated that he would reach out to another law firm if he did not receive the Court Order indicating that the charges were withdrawn. In his partial response to that text, Mr. Mocanu stated that it should have been sent and that he would personally follow up.¹¹ According to A. A., his last communication with Mr. Mocanu was just before November 1, 2025, when Mr. Mocanu said that he was sending someone to the court to fix the issue.

25There is no evidence that any representative from Ticket Justice attended the court to address the issue. Instead, on October 30, 2025, paralegal Jason Davie prepared and filed this motion to extend on behalf of A. A., with the affidavit and the text message exhibits.

26This is the summary of activity with respect to the chronology:

• September 11, 2024 – The tickets were issued to A. A..
• September 25, 2024 – A. A. formally retained Ticket Justice.
• September 26, 2024 – 15-day deadline to request a trial, request a resolution meeting, or pay the fine
• November 15, 2024 – A. A. was convicted on a Fail to Respond docket.
• December 20, 2024 – A. A. received a Notice of Suspension; Mr. Mocanu promised to rectify it.
• December 23, 2024 – Mr. Mocanu advised A. A. that he could drive and did not need to pay the reinstatement fee.
• December 24, 2024 – A. A. received notices for outstanding fines. Mr. Mocanu told him to ignore them as they were part of the reopening that he was working on.
• January 16, 2025 – Mr. Mocanu advised that the matter was reopened, and they are waiting for a trial date.
• February 28, 2025 – A. A. received more notices of outstanding fines. Mr. Mocanu said he would rectify the error, as A. A. should not have received the notices.
• March 10, 2025 – Mr. Mocanu advised there should be no reason that A. A.’s licence was suspended, but ultimately continued to “look into it”.
• April 7, 2025 – A. A. received a Notice of Suspension for non-payment of outstanding fines.
• April 8, 2025 – Mr. Mocanu said that the issue was fixed, but the Ministry of Transportation website continued to indicate the suspension.
• April 10, 2025 – An unknown person paid the outstanding fines and the surcharges, and presumably the reinstatement fee. A. A.’s suspension was lifted as a result.
• September 15, 2025 – The Law Society suspended Mr. Mocanu.
• September 25, 2025 – A. A.’s insurance notified him that he had these convictions on his abstract. Mr. Mocanu said he would find out why the convictions remained.
• October 8, 2025 – Mr. Mocanu said he sent confirmation from his computer that A. A. had no convictions.
• October 16, 2025 – A. A. still did not receive confirmation. Mr. Mocanu said he would contact the insurance company the next day.
• October 20, 2025 – A. A. asked if Mr. Mocanu spoke to the insurance company. Mr. Mocanu said A. A. should have received the information, but he would follow up.
• October 30, 2025 – A. A. filed the motion to extend the time to file an appeal.

Conduct of Retained and Purported Representatives

27As indicated, Mr. Mocanu was suspended on an interlocutory basis by the Law Society of Ontario on September 15, 2025, on an Order made with his consent.¹² As such, Mr. Mocanu was obligated to follow the Law Society’s Guidelines for Paralegals Who Are Suspended or Who Have Given an Undertaking Not to Provide Legal Services. As per the Guidelines, he was not permitted to report to a client, except to inform the client that he is suspended and to deliver an account.

28However, when A. A. confronted Mr. Mocanu about the Law Society website listing him as suspended, Mr. Mocanu replied that it was for something completely different and deflected. Nevertheless, between September 26 and October 30, 2025, Mr. Mocanu continued to communicate and act as if he were performing legal services.

29While determinations of professional misconduct lie with the Law Society, the evidence presented before this Court established a prima facie breach of the September 15, 2025 Order.

30Further, the evidence establishes that Mr. Mocanu counselled A. A. to drive while not legally authorized to do so, thereby counselling conduct that would constitute an offence, contrary to Rule 4 of the Paralegal Rules of Conduct.

31There was no evidence as to who Angelo G is or whether he is or was a licensed member of the Law Society. However, he was the contact person for Ticket Justice in this case, which was previously confirmed to be Mr. Mocanu’s firm by Justice L. Strezos in Toronto (City) v. Becerra, 2025 ONCJ 426.

32In Toronto (City) v. Zhen, 2022 ONCJ 410, Justice Rondinelli outlined a process for the Ends of Justice Test when a paralegal makes an error or omission resulting in an appellant’s conviction. In that process, the paralegal would be required to provide an affidavit to explain the error. This was not a case of an error, omission, or lapse in diligence, but an ongoing course of deceptive conduct.

33In light of the communications and the temporal overlap with the suspension, I direct that an unredacted copy of these reasons and the exhibits be provided to the Law Society of Ontario. This direction is made to assist the Law Society in discharging its public‑interest mandate, not to usurp its adjudicative role.

Conclusion

34A. A. established that the convictions were entered in his absence through no fault of his own, and that setting the convictions aside met the “Ends of Justice” test, as outlined in Toronto (City) v. Yusuf, 2022 ONCJ 412.

35From the outset, he intended to dispute both charges and promptly retained purported representatives to do so. The record showed that A. A. was repeatedly given incorrect and misleading assurances that the matters were being addressed, and he was “fine to drive” despite the suspension and the reinstatement fee requirement. These communications foreclosed his ability to take timely, lawful steps to protect his rights and led directly to the convictions entered in his absence.

36Even worse, the fines were later paid without A. A.’s knowledge or instructions, which only lifted the licence suspension, leaving the convictions intact. This further obscured the true procedural posture and reinforced his reasonable belief that the charges had been resolved in his favour.

37I find that but for the knowing and deliberate misrepresentations, A. A. would have exercised his right to a trial or, at a minimum, pursued a resolution meeting, and would not have been convicted in absentia. The misrepresentations directly foreclosed those lawful options, resulting in the suspension and fines. Moreover, the lack of action risked A. A. being fined in excess of the minimum and facing a possible term of imprisonment.¹³ Permitting the convictions to stand would be a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, the convictions were quashed, and a new trial was ordered.¹⁴ To do otherwise would undermine confidence in the administration of justice.

Footnotes

1. 1R.S.O., 1990, c. H8, sections 78.1 and 130, respectively.
2. 2This was on the consent of the parties, after an evidentiary hearing.
3. 3There was no evidence as to whether A. A. received an invoice for services rendered.
4. 4Paralegals and lawyers who practice in Provincial Offences matters are aware that there is an additional grace period after the 15-day window.
5. 5That document was not entered into evidence. However, A. A. testified that it was with respect to reopening the matters to have a trial set.
6. 6Even if the Reopening Application had been denied, it would have been part of the Court file.
7. 7This appeared to be the first time that A. A.’s identification was requested, contrary to the client identification and verification obligations under Part III of By-Law 7.1, made pursuant to the Law Society Act, R.S.O., c L.8.
8. 8The Court does not have documentation of the reinstatement fee being paid, as it is a Ministry of Transportation fee and unrelated to the court fines.
9. 9Attached to these Reasons are the specific text messages, as Appendix A. The messages are portions of the conversation that were relied upon as exhibits for the appeal.
10. 10No evidence that indicated the muffin bakery owners or employees are involved with or have knowledge of Mr. Mocanu or Ticket Justice.
11. 11This last communication filed was partially cut off. No adverse inference was drawn from the incomplete exhibit.
12. 12Reasons for the suspension: Law Society of Ontario v Mocanu, 2025 ONLSTH 138, https://canlii.ca/t/kfqhf
13. 13Depending on the driver’s record, the penalty for a handheld device could be between $500 and $3000, along with a suspension of 3 to 30 days, as per sections 78.1(6.1) and (6.2). Further, the demerit points could be 3 or 6, as per the Demerit Point System, O Reg 339/94, section 3. Likewise, the penalty for careless driving is a fine of $400–$2,000 and/or a term of imprisonment of up to 6 months, with the possibility of a licence suspension of up to 2 years, as per section 130(2) of the Highway Traffic Act. The demerit points recorded for the careless driving would be an additional 6 points.
14. 14Nothing in these Reasons should be taken as determining the merits of the charges, which were not discussed at the hearing.
15. iFor publication purposes, the Applicant/Appellant’s identifying information will be anonymized by using initials consistent with the parties’ consent on January 28, 2026, as well as any personal information. A complete, unredacted version of these reasons and the exhibits may be made available upon request to the Court.