Ontario Court of Justice

Date: March 8, 2018

Location: Brampton, Ontario

Judge: Quon J.P.

In the Matter of

The Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A

and

Ontario Regulation 17/05

Between

Her Majesty The Queen In Right Of Ontario

As Represented By

The Ministry of Government And Consumer Services

Prosecutor

and

Ivan's Electric Limited,

Ivan Valovic,

Insight Electric Inc.,

and

Peter Valovic

(No. 2)

Defendants

Reasons for Sentence

Sentencing hearing held: December 13, 2017

Sentencing Judgment released: March 8, 2018

Counsel

G. Ludlow, counsel for the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services
T. Hein and J. Noonan, counsel for Ivan's Electric Limited and Ivan Valovic
P. Mergler, counsel for Insight Electric Inc. and Peter Valovic

Cases Considered or Referred To

Ivan Valovic and Ivan's Electric C. v. Director, Licensing and Certification (Electrical Safety Authority), 26 August 2011, NOAL 09-13 and NOAL 09-14, ESA Review Panel
Ivan Valovic and Ivan's Electric C. v. Director, Licensing and Certification (Electrical Safety Authority), 9 September 2011, NOAL 09-13 and NOAL 09-14, ESA Review Panel
La Souveraine, Compagnie d'assurance générale v. Autorité des marchés financiers, [2013] S.C.J. No. 63 (S.C.C.)
Lavin Agency Ltd. v. Blackhall & Co., [2004] O.J. No. 1287 (O.C.A.)
Mayburry Inc. v. Ontario Electrical Safety Code, [2014] O.J. No. 4926 (Ont. Div. Ct.)
Ontario (Ministry of Government and Consumer Services) v. Ivan's Electric Ltd., [2017] O.J. No. 1707 (O.C.J.)
R. v. Cirillo and 1614862 Ontario Inc., 10 February 2010, Central East Region, 999-07-0272, Newmarket, Ontario, Ont. Ct. of Justice
R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd., 2 C.C.C. (3d) 287 (O.C.A.)
R. v. Belisle, [2011] O.J. No. 1326 (O.C.J.)
R. v. Hatzipetrakos, 1674509 Ontario Ltd. and 1758658 Ontario Inc., 5 September 2017, Central East Region, 3811-999-10-639-01, Barrie, Ontario, Ont. Ct. of Justice
R. v. Horowitz, 6 September 2017, Toronto, Ontario, Ont. Ct. of Justice
R. v. Lesson, [1990] B.C.J. No. 833, 53 C.C.C. (3d) 365 (B.C.C.A.)
R. v. McLeod, [1992] S.J. No. 672 (Sask. C.A.)
R. v. Pellegrini, 2006 ONCJ 297, [2006] O.J. No. 3369 (O.C.J.)
R. v. Storey, [2016] O.J. No. 690 (O.C.J.)
R. v. Valovic, [2006] O.J. No. 5564 (O.C.J.)
R. v. Valovic, [2007] O.J. No. 2775 (O.C.J.)
R. v. Valovic, [2009] O.J. No. 6494 (S.C.J.O.)
R. v. Valovic, [2011] O.J. No. 1819 (O.C.A.)
R. v. Valovic, [2011] S.C.C.A. No. 285 (S.C.C.)
R. v. Wholesale Travel Group Inc., 67 C.C.C. (3d) 193, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 154
Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Ltd., [2017] O.J. No. 166 (S.C.J.O.)
Woodhouse v. Snow Valley Resorts (1987) Ltd., [2017] O.J. No. 232 (S.C.J.O.)
Valovic v. Electrical Safety Authority Review Panel

Statutes, Regulations, and Bills Cited

1. BACKGROUND

[1] This is the sentencing disposition of Ivan Valovic, Ivan's Electric Ltd., Peter Valovic, and Insight Electric Inc., who have been convicted for committing offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A ("CPA 2002") and its regulations. The prosecution is seeking jail sentences while counsel for the convicted offenders argue that custodial sentences are not warranted or needed to achieve the objective of deterrence.

[2] The trial of the four offenders had been held between October 9, 2014 and November 2, 2016, with the four offenders originally facing 103 charges set out in 46 counts in three separate informations. Of the 103 charges, 89 convictions were entered respectively against the 4 offenders while acquittals were entered for 14 of the charges. See Ontario (Ministry of Government and Consumer Services) v. Ivan's Electric Ltd., [2017] O.J. No. 1707 (O.C.J.).

[3] Of the 89 convictions, Ivan Valovic was convicted of committing 25 offences; Ivan's Electric Ltd. was convicted of committing 25 offences; Peter Valovic was convicted of committing 19 offences; and Insight Electric Inc. was convicted of committing 20 offences.

[4] For each of them individually, the following are the particular counts and the particular type of offence that each of them had been convicted of committing:

(a) For the individual, Ivan Valovic (25 convictions):

on Information #5731: counts #2, #4, #7, #8, #9, #11, #12, and #14 (8 convictions)
on Information #5740: counts #1, #2, #4 and #5 (4 convictions)
on Information #8091: counts #1, #5, #7, #9, #11, #13, #15, #17, #19, #21, #23, #25, and #27 (13 convictions)

Breakdown of Ivan Valovic's Convictions:

(i) 11 of Ivan Valovic's convictions were for failing to deliver to a consumer a direct agreement containing the information required by s. 35(1) of Ont. Reg. 17/05.

(ii) 1 of Ivan Valovic's convictions were for being a director of the corporation, Ivan's Electric Ltd., who had failed to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from failing to deliver to a consumer a direct agreement containing the information required by s. 35(1) of Ont. Reg. 17/05.

(iii) 5 of Ivan Valovic's convictions were for failing to provide a refund to a consumer within 15 days after the date the said consumer gave notice of cancellation, contrary to s. 96(1)(a) of CPA 2002.

(iv) 1 of Ivan Valovic's convictions were for being a director of the corporation, Ivan's Electric Ltd., who had failed to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from failing to provide a refund a consumer within 15 days after the date the said consumer gave notice of cancellation, contrary to s. 96(1)(a) of the CPA 2002.

(v) 7 of Ivan Valovic's convictions for were for engaging in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation to a consumer, contrary to s. 17(1) of the CPA 2002.

(b) For the corporation, Ivan's Electric Ltd. (25 convictions):

on Information #5731: counts #1, #3, #7, #8, #9, #11, #12, and #14 (8 convictions)
on Information #5740: counts #1, #2, #4 and #5 (4 convictions)
on Information #8091: counts #1, #5, #7, #9, #11, #13, #15, #17, #19, #21, #23, #25, and #27 (13 convictions)

Breakdown of Ivan's Electric Ltd.'s Convictions:

(i) 12 of Ivan's Electric Ltd.'s convictions were for failing to deliver to a consumer a direct agreement containing the information required by s. 35(1) of Ont. Reg. 17/05.

(ii) 6 of Ivan's Electric Ltd.'s convictions were for failing to provide a refund to a consumer within 15 days after the date the said consumer gave notice of cancellation, contrary to s. 96(1)(a) of CPA 2002.

(iii) 7 of Ivan's Electric Ltd.'s convictions were for engaging in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation to a consumer, contrary to s. 17(1) of the CPA 2002.

(c) For the individual, Peter Valovic (19 convictions):

on Information #5731: counts #13 and #15 (2 convictions)
on Information #5740: counts #1, #2, #4 and #5 (4 convictions)
on Information #8091: counts #2, #6, #8, #10, #12, #14, #16, #18, #20, #22, #24, #26, and #28 (13 convictions)

Breakdown of Peter Valovic's Convictions:

(i) 2 of Peter Valovic's convictions were for failing to deliver to a consumer a direct agreement containing the information required by s. 35(1) of Ont. Reg. 17/05.

(ii) 7 of Peter Valovic's convictions were for being a director of the corporation, Insight Electric Inc., who had failed to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from failing to deliver to a consumer a direct agreement containing the information required by s. 35(1) of Ont. Reg. 17/05.

(iii) 4 of Peter Valovic's convictions were for being a director of the corporation, Insight Electric Inc., who had failed to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from failing to provide a refund a consumer within 15 days after the date the said consumer gave notice of cancellation, contrary to s. 96(1)(a) of the CPA 2002.

(iv) 2 of Peter Valovic's convictions were for engaging in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation to a consumer, contrary to s. 17(1) of the CPA 2002.

(v) 4 of Peter Valovic's convictions were for being a director of the corporation, Insight Electric Inc., who had failed take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from engaging in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation to a consumer, contrary to s. 17(1) of the CPA 2002.

(d) For the corporation, Insight Electric Inc. (20 convictions):

on Information #5731: counts #11, #12, and #14 (3 convictions)
on Information #5740: counts #1, #2, #4 and #5 (4 convictions)
on Information #8091: counts #1, #5, #7, #9, #11, #13, #15, #17, #19, #21, #23, #25, and #27 (13 convictions)

Breakdown of Insight Electric Inc.'s Convictions:

(i) 9 of Insight Electric Inc.'s convictions were for failing to deliver to a consumer a direct agreement containing the information required by s. 35(1) of Ont. Reg. 17/05.

(ii) 4 of Insight Electric Inc.'s convictions were for failing to provide a refund to a consumer within 15 days after the date the said consumer gave notice of cancellation, contrary to s. 96(1)(a) of CPA 2002.

(iii) 7 of Insight Electric Inc.'s convictions were for engaging in an unfair practice by making a false, misleading or deceptive representation to a consumer, contrary to s. 17(1) of the CPA 2002.

(A) AVAILABLE PENALTIES UNDER THE CPA 2002 THAT MAY BE IMPOSED

[5] Upon conviction for committing an offence under the CPA 2002 or under its regulations, Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic, would be liable under s. 116(5) of that legislation to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or to both. For Ivan's Electric Ltd. and Insight Electric Inc., both corporations would be both liable to a fine of not more than $250,000 upon conviction for committing an offence under the CPA 2002 or under its regulations:

Penalties

116(5) An individual who is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day, or both, and a corporation that is convicted of an offence under this Act is liable to a fine of not more than $250,000.

[6] Moreover, s. 117 of the CPA 2002 allows for a sentencing court to order a person convicted of committing an offence under the CPA 2002 to pay compensation or make restitution:

Orders for compensation, restitution

117. If a person is convicted of an offence under this Act, the court making the conviction may, in addition to any other penalty, order the person convicted to pay compensation or make restitution.

[7] In addition, the restitution order may be included as a condition of a probation order issued under s. 72 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, by virtue of 72(3)(a):

Probation order

72 (1) Where a defendant is convicted of an offence in a proceeding commenced by information, the court may, having regard to the age, character and background of the defendant, the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding its commission,

(a) suspend the passing of sentence and direct that the defendant comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order;

(b) in addition to fining the defendant or sentencing the defendant to imprisonment, whether in default of payment of a fine or otherwise, direct that the defendant comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order; or

(c) where it imposes a sentence of imprisonment on the defendant, whether in default of payment of a fine or otherwise, that does not exceed ninety days, order that the sentence be served intermittently at such times as are specified in the order and direct that the defendant, at all times when he or she is not in confinement pursuant to such order, comply with the conditions prescribed in a probation order.

Statutory conditions of order

(2) A probation order shall be deemed to contain the conditions that,

(a) the defendant not commit the same or any related or similar offence, or any offence under a statute of Canada or Ontario or any other province of Canada that is punishable by imprisonment;

(b) the defendant appear before the court as and when required; and

Conditions imposed by court

(3) In addition to the conditions set out in subsection (2), the court may prescribe as a condition in a probation order,

(a) that the defendant satisfy any compensation or restitution that is required or authorized by an Act;

(b) with the consent of the defendant and where the conviction is of an offence that is punishable by imprisonment, that the defendant perform a community service as set out in the order;

(c) where the conviction is of an offence punishable by imprisonment, such other conditions relating to the circumstances of the offence and of the defendant that contributed to the commission of the offence as the court considers appropriate to prevent similar unlawful conduct or to contribute to the rehabilitation of the defendant; or

(d) where considered necessary for the purpose of implementing the conditions of the probation order, that the defendant report to a responsible person designated by the court and, in addition, where the circumstances warrant it, that the defendant be under the supervision of the person to whom he or she is required to report.

Form of order

(4) A probation order shall be in the prescribed form and the court shall specify therein the period for which it is to remain in force, which shall not be for more than two years from the date when the order takes effect.

Notice of order

(5) Where the court makes a probation order, it shall cause a copy of the order and a copy of section 75 to be given to the defendant.

Regulations for community service orders

(6) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations governing restitution, compensation and community service orders, including their terms and conditions.

Exception

(7) The court shall not make a probation order when an individual has been convicted of an absolute liability offence, unless the order is made in addition to a sentence of imprisonment imposed under section 69 in default of payment of a fine.

When order comes into force

73 (1) A probation order comes into force,

(a) on the date on which the order is made; or

(b) where the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment other than a sentence to be served intermittently, upon the expiration of that sentence.

Continuation in force

(2) Subject to section 75, where a defendant who is bound by a probation order is convicted of an offence or is imprisoned in default of payment of a fine, the order continues in force except in so far as the sentence or imprisonment renders it impossible for the defendant to comply for the time being with the order.

(B) ARGUMENTS FOR WHY PARTICULAR SANCTIONS ARE BEING SOUGHT BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES

(1) SANCTIONS SOUGHT BY THE PROSECUTION

[8] The prosecution submits that based on the circumstances, nature, and gravity of the offences committed by the four convicted offenders, the appropriate sentences that should be imposed should consist of the following:

(a) For the individual, Ivan Valovic (25 convictions):

[9] For Ivan Valovic, the prosecution is not seeking any monetary fines to be imposed for any of his 25 convictions, as the prosecution contends that even significant fines will not deter him from using "dishonesty and guile" in dealing with consumers in the future, since he, his wife, and his company, Ivan's Electric Ltd., had been already sentenced to pay a large fine totalling approximately $255,000 for tax evasion offences and that he had also been warned by the Electrical Safety Authority (ESA), which is the governing body regulating electrical safety and the licensing of master electricians and electrical contractors in Ontario, about his lack of integrity and honesty in dealing with consumers and that he had also been threatened with the suspension of his master electrician's licence and the electrical contractor's licence of his company, Ivan's Electric Ltd., yet large fines and warnings from the ESA has not specifically deterred Ivan Valovic from dealing unfairly with and taking advantage of vulnerable consumers.

[10] As a result, the prosecution is seeking a total period of incarceration of 4½ months for Ivan Valovic. For the term of 4 and ½ months of imprisonment for Ivan Valovic, the prosecution submits that the 4½ months of imprisonment (or 130 days of imprisonment in total) is to be served consecutively and can be divided among the following 13 of his convictions in the following way:

(i) 10 days of imprisonment to be served consecutively for each of the 5 convictions for failing to provide a refund (50 days);

(ii) 10 days of imprisonment to be served consecutively for 1 conviction for being a director of the corporation, Ivan's Electric Ltd., who had failed to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from failing to provide a refund (10 days); and

(iii) 10 days of imprisonment to be served consecutively for each of the 7 convictions for engaging in an unfair practice (70 days).

[11] As well, the prosecution is seeking that Ivan Valovic receive a higher sentence than Peter Valovic would receive.

[12] In addition, the prosecution is requesting an additional sanction for Ivan Valovic to prevent Ivan Valovic from committing similar offences in the future by having Ivan Valovic placed on probation for a period of 2 years with the 3 statutory conditions set out under s. 72(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, and that additional conditions be imposed in the probation order that prohibit Ivan Valovic from doing any electrical work in residential houses (except for his own residence or other property that he legally owns) and that Ivan Valovic is also required to pay the following amounts of monetary restitution to the following people:

(i) one-half of the amount of $855.73 to Denise Herold,

(ii) the full amount of $885 to Boris Wolchak,

(iii) one-half of the amount of $296.80 to Gladys Canadas,

(iv) one-half of the amount of $1695 to Peter Christensen,

(v) one-half of the amount of $960.50 to Zaven Tahtadjian,

(vi) one-half of the amount of $100 to Marjorie Riley.

(b) For the corporation, Ivan's Electric Ltd. (25 convictions):

[13] For Ivan's Electric Ltd., the prosecution is seeking fines totaling $65,000 for its 25 conviction, which would be comprised of the following:

(i) a $5000 fine for each of the 7 unfair practice convictions, that would total $35,000.

(ii) a $3000 fine for each of the 6 fail to refund convictions, that would total $18,000.

(iii) a $1000 fine for each of the 12 improper agreement convictions, that would total $12,000.

(c) For the individual, Peter Valovic (19 convictions):

[14] For Peter Valovic, the prosecution is also not seeking any monetary fines to be imposed against Peter Valovic for any of his 19 convictions, but is instead seeking a custodial sentence for Peter Valovic that would total 80 days imprisonment, which could be served intermittently.

[15] However, in respect to the 9 convictions Peter Valovic had received in respect to the improper contract offences, the prosecution is seeking a suspended sentence on each of them for Peter Valovic.

[16] For the 80-day term of imprisonment for Peter Valovic, the prosecution submits that the 80 days of imprisonment in total that are to be served consecutively can be divided among the remaining 10 convictions in respect to the unfair practices and fail to refund offences in the following way:

(i) 10 days of imprisonment to be served consecutively for each of the 2 convictions for engaging in an unfair practice (total of 20 days);

(ii) 10 days of imprisonment to be served consecutively for each of the 4 convictions for being a director of the corporation, Insight Electric Inc., who had failed to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from engaging in an unfair practice (total of 40 days); and

(iii) 5 days of imprisonment to be served consecutively for each of the 4 convictions for being a director of the corporation, Insight Electric Inc., who had failed to take reasonable care to prevent the corporation from failing to provide a refund (total of 20 days).

[17] In addition, the prosecution is also seeking an additional sanction for Peter Valovic in order to prevent Peter Valovic from committing similar offences in the future by having Peter Valovic placed on probation for a period of 2 years with the 3 statutory conditions set out under s. 72(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, and with the additional condition that he also pay the following amounts of monetary restitution to the following people:

(1) one-half of the amount of $855.73 to Denise Herold,

(2) one-half of the amount of $296.80 to Gladys Canadas,

(3) one-half of the amount of $1695 to Peter Christensen,

(4) one-half of the amount of $960.50 to Zaven Tahtadjian,

(5) one-half of the amount of $100 to Marjorie Riley.

(d) For the corporation, Insight Electric Inc. (20 convictions):

[18] For Insight Electric Inc., the prosecution is seeking fines totaling $56,000 for the 20 convictions, which would be comprised of the following:

(a) a $5000 fine for each of the 7 "unfair practice" convictions, that would total $35,000.

(b) a $3000 fine for each of the 4 "fail to refund" convictions, that would total $12,000.

(2) THE PROSECUTION SUBMITS THAT CUSTODIAL SENTENCES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR IVAN VALOVIC AND PETER VALOVIC IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE SENTENCING OBJECTIVES OF DETERRENCE, DENUNCIATION, AND PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC

[19] The prosecution contends that similar to the nature, gravity, and circumstances of the offences that have been committed in other cases prosecuted under consumer protection legislation in which custodial sentences were handed out to convicted suppliers of goods and services, even for first time offenders, that custodial sentences would be appropriate and justified in the present circumstances and for the nature and gravity of the CPA 2002 offences committed by both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic. Moreover, the prosecution submits that custodial sentences would send out the necessary message of "deterrence" to both Ivan Valovic and to Peter Valovic and to like-minded persons, as well as to the public in general, so as to protect consumers and to allow the consumer economy to function, as well as to ensure consumers that they may have confidence in calling suppliers and in placing a deposit with the supplier and that they would be treated fairly by suppliers, and along with the knowledge that if the suppliers do not act honestly and fairly, then the courts will impose appropriate sanctions against these suppliers, that could include jail sentences.

[20] In addition, the prosecution is seeking a higher and longer custodial sentence for Ivan Valovic in comparison to the custodial sentence requested for Peter Valovic because Ivan Valovic had been the one who had been the one that negotiated agreements with the consumers and used "dishonesty and guile" and in dealing unfairly with vulnerable consumers in the offences committed; while Peter Valovic, who had been aware of the nature of the CPA 2002 and had studied this particular legislation in his Master Electrician's course, had failed to properly supervise Ivan Valovic when Ivan Valovic had been doing electrical work for Peter Valovic's company, Insight Electric Inc.

[21] Moreover, to justify the imposition of custodial sentences for both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic, the prosecution relies on the following cases in which custodial sentences were imposed on suppliers who were convicted for committing offences under the CPA 2002:

(a) R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd.

In R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. (1982), 2 C.C.C. (3d) 287 (O.C.A.), at pp. 294 to 296, the Court of Appeal for Ontario had recognized that for a very large extent the enforcement of public welfare offences is achieved through fines and that the amount of the fine will be determined by the need to enforce regulatory standards by "deterrence". In addition, the Court of Appeal held that the amount must be substantial and significant so that it will not be viewed as merely a licence for illegality, nor as a mere slap on the wrist and that it should also serve as a warning to others who might be minded to engage in similar criminal activity that it would be costly for them to do so and that "general deterrence" was the paramount factor to be considered in arriving at an appropriate sentence. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal held that the fine, without being harsh, must be substantial enough to warn others that the offence will not be tolerated.

(b) Woodhouse v. Snow Valley Resorts (1987) Ltd.

In Woodhouse v. Snow Valley Resorts (1987) Ltd., [2017] O.J. No. 232 (S.C.J.O.), at paras. 20 and 21, McCarthy J. had noted that consumer protection legislation is all about consumer protection and that its terms should be interpreted generously in favour of consumers. Moreover, McCarthy J. explained that consumer protection legislation is inherently consumer-focused as its main objectives are: (i) protecting consumers, (ii) restoring balance in the contractual relationship between suppliers and consumers, and (iii) eliminating unfair and misleading practices.

(c) Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Ltd.

In Schnarr v. Blue Mountain Resorts Ltd., [2017] O.J. No. 166 (S.C.J.O.), at paras. 85 to 90, 93 to 95, and 103, Tzimas J. explained that the definitions for consumers, consumer agreements, services and suppliers, are cast in the broadest terms possible and that all consumers are entitled to the benefits of the protections afforded by the Consumer Protection Act and all suppliers are bound by the obligations defined by the Consumer Protection Act. Moreover, Tzimas J. held that the legislation's specific and overriding objective is the protection of consumers so that the substantive and procedural rights under the Act apply "despite any agreement or waiver to the contrary".

(d) R. v. Cirillo and 1614862 Ontario Inc.

Furthermore, in the unreported decision of Favret J. in R. v. Cirillo and 1614862 Ontario Inc., 10 February 2010, Central East Region, 999-07-0272, Newmarket, Ontario, Ontario Court of Justice, which concerned the appeal of a custodial sentence that had been imposed under the Consumer Protection Act. In that case, Cirillo had entered into contracts with consumers to provide decking, building of sidewalks, installation of pools and fountains, landscaping, and electrical and wiring. Contracts had been provided to the consumers upon cash deposits being advanced by the consumers. The jobs, however, were not satisfactorily completed and no funds had been returned to the consumers where jobs were not completed. The consumers had to also hire other contractors to redo or complete the required work. Some of the work provided by Cirillo had also caused unsafe situations. As a result of consumer complaints to the Ministry and a subsequent investigation, Cirillo had been charged for contravening sections of the Consumer Protection Act. Cirillo was subsequently found guilty in absentia and had been sentenced to imprisonment, probation, and to pay restitution. Cirillo then appealed his custodial sentence. However, Cirillo had paid an amount of $35,000 in restitution back to the affected consumers before the appeal was heard, with approximately $13,000 still outstanding to be paid back to the affected consumers at the time of the sentencing hearing.

Favret J. had emphasized that in these types of transactions consumers rely on the word of contractors that they will and can deliver a safe product in a timely fashion. In addition, Favret J. noted that protection of the public and the interest of the three victims must also be reflected in any sentence that is imposed. After considering the objectives of the Consumer Protection Act, the aggravating and mitigating factors, the seriousness of the offences, and that the offences had occurred in the same time period, the principles of sentencing including general and specific deterrence, denunciation, reparation to victims, and rehabilitation of Mr. Cirillo, as well as Mr. Cirillo's background, Favret J. concluded that a fit sentence would include a custodial sentence in the range of 21 to 45 days followed by a period of 18 months' probation.

(e) R. v. Belisle

Additionally, in R. v. Belisle, [2011] O.J. No. 1326 (O.C.J.), which was also an appeal of a custodial sentence of 75 days for convictions for offences under the Consumer Protection Act, Legault J. had been of the view that a total sentence of 45 days in jail would be a fit sentence for Belisle. In the circumstances of that case, Hubert Belisle had preyed upon a very vulnerable older couple in defrauding them of $29,000 for renovations and repairs of their home that were not completed. Belisle's victim, Mr. Earl, was eighty-three years of age and suffering from Alzheimer's. In addition, Belisle had convinced the elderly couple that repairs had been required for their home when in fact they were not. Moreover, the repairs and renovations to the couple's home were not carried out in a timely manner in light of the significant amount of money that had advanced to Belisle. At paras. 1 and 16 to 30 of R. v. Belisle, Legault J. had held that the finding made by the trial judge that Mr. Belisle was a predator, who had preyed upon vulnerable people and whose motive had been to take advantage of consumers for Belisle's own benefit had been supported by the evidence that had been presented at trial. After considering all the circumstances and the primary objectives of general and specific deterrence in sentencing, Legault J. had been of the view that a total sentence of 45 days in jail would be a fit sentence for Belisle.

(f) R. v. Hatzipetrakos, 1674509 Ontario Ltd. and 1758658 Ontario Inc.

And, in another unreported decision of R. v. Hatzipetrakos, 1674509 Ontario Ltd. and 1758658 Ontario Inc., 5 September 2017, Central East Region, 3811-999-10-639-01, Barrie, Ontario, Ontario Court of Justice, the convicted supplier, Hatzipetrakos, had been contracted to renovate and expand a cottage for a consumer for the amount of $96,000. The consumer had provided Hatzipetrakos with three payments totalling $75,000. However, neither Hatzipetrakos nor any of his companies did any work on the cottage except to gut it. In addition, neither Hatzipetrakos nor either of his two companies had returned to the cottage to do any further work after it had been gutted. In considering the appeal of Hatzipetrakos's sentence for his conviction for committing an unfair practice under the Consumer Protection Act, Krelove J. had stated that he had agreed with the words of Justice Favret in the unreported decision dated September 5, 2017 of R. v. Cirillo and 1614862 Ontario Inc. and 1758658 Ontario Inc., in which Favret J. had adopted the principles of sentencing that have to be considered with respect to a Consumer Protection Act offence, which would be general and specific deterrence, denunciation, reparation to victims and rehabilitation to the offender. Krelove J. then held that a period of custody of 60 days for Hatzipetrakos would adequately balance these relevant sentencing principles.

(g) R. v. Storey

Moreover, in R. v. Storey, [2016] O.J. No. 690 (O.C.J.), which was another case involving a sentence appeal of custodial sentences imposed on convictions for offences under the Consumer Protection Act. In that case Storey and Cordeiro, who were jointly involved in the business of remodeling kitchens, had been both charged with a number of offences contrary to the Consumer Protection Act in relation to 5 consumers. The 5 consumers had provided substantial deposits and received little or nothing in return. Both Storey and Cordeiro had been sentenced to custodial sentences after they were convicted of committing these offences, even though both had no criminal record, other convictions, or a record under the Consumer Protection Act. Harris J. on granting the sentence appeal had held that for Storey, who had been the one who had made exaggerated pitches to the consumers and who had struck agreements with them, the appropriate sentence for him would be for a period of imprisonment of 30 days for each of the 5 counts in respect to committing unfair practices to be served concurrently, as well as 15 days for each of the other 5 counts for failing to provide refunds to be served concurrently, but consecutive to the first 30 days for a total of 45 days (which could be served intermittently), probation for two years, and to comply with a standalone restitution order; while for Cordeiro, who had been an officer and director of the company and who had failed to prevent the offences from occurring, the appropriate sentence would be 15 days of imprisonment for each count to be served concurrently, probation for two years, and a standalone restitution order.

[22] And, even though the cases relied upon by the prosecution to support custodial sentences for both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic may appear to be significantly different to the present case because little or no work had been provided by those convicted suppliers to their consumers after the consumers had paid large deposits for the contracted work, as opposed to the present circumstances involving Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic, in which their electrical work had been completed as had been contracted for and had passed Electrical Safety Authority inspection (except for the two consumers Denise Herold and Boris Wolchak who had paid deposits for future work and then cancelled their jobs and had received partial refunds of their deposits), the prosecution contends that those cases are not that different to the present case in the sense that the offenders in those cases had sought to take advantage of the consumer's situation, preyed on their weakness, and had exploited the power imbalance and treated the vulnerable consumers unfairly.

[23] In addition, the prosecution submits that both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic lead a comfortable, wonderful, and idyllic life. Moreover, the prosecution contends that their conduct in this case had not resulted from addiction, gambling, or a death of a family member that would have caused them from being able to cope with conducting their respective personal affairs and businesses properly. In other words, the prosecution submits that there had been nothing that had thrown Ivan Valovic or Peter Valovic's life into disarray, so that the only reasonable explanation for them committing these offences is one of "greed". Moreover, the prosecution submits that they both had worked together to benefit themselves financially and in doing so, they had not treated consumers fairly and had taken advantage of the consumers' situation. As such, the prosecution contends that this egregious conduct, especially their unfair practices, must be denounced by imposing custodial sentences on both of them.

Specific Arguments for Ivan Valovic

[24] Specifically for Ivan Valovic, the prosecution submits that because Ivan Valovic had been previously convicted of tax evasion in the amount of approximately $128,000 for approximately $300,000 of unreported income over the last half of the 1990s (see R. v. Valovic, [2006] O.J. No. 5564 (O.C.J.)), which is an offence of dishonesty, and which are similar in nature to the offences in the present case that he had committed under the CPA 2002, which also involve dishonest and unethical behavior towards the 11 consumers in the present case. In addition, the prosecution contends that since he, his wife, and his company, Ivan's Electric Ltd., has had to pay fines jointly in the amount of $255,000.00 for their convictions for the tax evasion charges and also because Ivan Valovic had already been given warnings by the Electrical Safety Authority about his unethical and dishonest dealings with consumers, that simply imposing significant fines on Ivan Valovic would not deter him from doing similar acts comprising of "dishonesty and guile" or engaging in unfair practices with consumers in the future. And, that the only sanction that will act as a deterrence for Ivan Valovic engaging in similar conduct and practices in the future would be to impose a custodial sentence.

[25] In respect to the consumers in the present case, the prosecution submits that Ivan Valovic had used the same "dishonesty and guile" in his dealings with them as he had been recognized in doing previously with the Canada Revenue Agency by Allen J. in R. v. Valovic, [2006] O.J. No. 5564 (O.C.J.), when Ivan Valovic had committed the tax evasion offences. In other words, the prosecution submits that Ivan Valovic is like a leopard who does not change its spots. Only this time the prosecution contends, it is better camouflaged and Ivan Valovic had been able to stalk easier prey.

[26] Moreover, the prosecution submits that there is also an absence of mitigating circumstances present and that the Pre-Sentence Report for Ivan Valovic had indicated that Ivan Valovic had lacked remorse for his conduct in respect to the consumers in this case, although the lack of remorse is not an aggravating factor.

[27] In addition, the prosecution submits that Ivan Valovic has a record while Peter Valovic does not.

[28] But more importantly, the prosecution submits that Ivan Valovic has had ample warnings about his lack of integrity and honesty with the Canada Revenue Agency and with consumers from the Electrical Safety Authority, his governing body, but that the warnings from the Electrical Safety Authority have not deterred him from using "dishonesty and guile" with consumers, and as such, fines would not deter him from continuing to commit offences under the CPA 2002 and that only a custodial sentence would actually achieve the objective of deterrence. This, the prosecution submits, is supported by the following findings made by other adjudicative bodies about Ivan Valovic's propensity to use "dishonesty and guile" with consumers in the following decisions involving Ivan Valovic:

(i) R. v. Valovic (Tax Evasion Case)

In R. v. Valovic, [2007] O.J. No. 2775 (O.C.J.), which had been the case in which Ivan Valovic had been convicted for tax evasion by failing to report income of $300,000, Allen J. had noted that there had been aggravating circumstances, which included that the Valovics (Ivan and his wife Dagmar) had extensive contact with the agency concerning their tax affairs relating to the first half of the nineties, resulting perhaps in reassessments, and certainly in Ivan Valovic signing an undertaking to keep proper books and records. However, this undertaking by the Valovics had been dishonoured, Allen J. had believed, to facilitate the crimes related to tax evasion over a period of 5 years, consisting of almost daily acts of conscious dishonesty. Allen J. also noted that while there was no prior conviction for the Valovics, they had still received a very clear warning and that the violations under the Income Tax Act had been brazen. Moreover, Allen J. commented that the Valovics' actions were not a one off failure to report a windfall nor had it been wilful blindness to their obligations as citizens. In addition, Allen J. had held that there had been no remorse or contrition from the Valovics nor mitigation in the sense of any need, such as expensive medical treatment, nor was there any drug or gambling habit which might, to some extent, explain the behavior related to evading the payment of taxes. In addition, Allen J. noted that the Valovics went into the period in question doing very well financially and appeared to have a net worth of over two million dollars with a home, a cottage in Muskoka, and rental properties largely unencumbered and that the proceeds of their crimes had merely enhanced an already comfortable lifestyle, and that their motive had been unadorned greed.

(ii) Electrical Safety Authority Review Panel Decision

Furthermore, in Ivan Valovic and Ivan's Electric C. v. Director, Licensing and Certification (Electrical Safety Authority), 26 August 2011, NOAL 09-13 and NOAL 09-14, the Review Panel of the Electrical Safety Authority had noted that the Director of Licensing and Certification for the Electrical Safety Authority had issued a Notice of Proposal to suspend Ivan Valovic's Master Electrician's licence for 6 months and to suspend the Electrical Contractor's licence of Ivan's Electric Limited for 90 days for several reasons, including the conduct of Ivan Valovic which had afforded reasonable grounds for the belief that the Ivan Valovic or Ivan's Electric Ltd. would not conduct themselves with honesty and integrity or in accordance with the principle of protecting consumers. In addition, the Review Panel had found that Ivan Valovic in respect to one consumer had significantly exaggerated the inspection fees and that this had amounted to a false representation and that it had spoken to Ivan Valovic's lack of honesty and that the conduct of Ivan Valovic had been egregious and had demonstrated a complete lack of honesty and integrity. Moreover, the Review Panel had found in another case that Ivan Valovic had been intentionally vague to a consumer in order to mislead the consumer as to the actual cost of repairs. The Review Panel had also heard from a number of consumers and had found that Ivan Valovic had clearly not acted with honesty and integrity on a number of occasions.

Specific Arguments for Peter Valovic

[29] In respect to justifying a custodial sentence for Peter Valovic, the prosecution submits that Peter Valovic had studied the CPA 2002 in his master electrician courses and would have been aware of the legislation, yet had failed to properly supervise his father, Ivan Valovic, in respect to his father's dealings with consumers when Ivan Valovic was working for or on behalf of Peter Valovic's company, Insight Electric Inc. Moreover, Peter Valovic had also been involved with the Electrical Safety Authority over a dispute that Ivan Valovic had with them over the interpretation of Rule 02-012, as far back as 2007. As such, the prosecution submits that a custodial sentence should be imposed on Peter Valovic for the offences he was convicted of related to committing unfair practices and failing to make a refund to a consumer.

[30] Furthermore, in respect to Peter Valovic's failure as the director of Insight Electric Inc. to prevent the company from failing to provide a proper contract to the consumers, the prosecution is seeking a suspended sentence, as the prosecution submits that the principle of deterrence in respect to providing proper contracts to consumers can be achieved through fines imposed on Peter Valovic's company, Insight Electric Inc.

(3) SENTENCES SOUGHT BY THE FOUR CONVICTED OFFENDERS

[31] Counsel for their respective clients submit that based on the circumstances and nature of the offences and moral blameworthiness of the conducted committed by the four convicted offenders respectively, that the appropriate sentences should be the following:

(a) For the individual, Ivan Valovic (25 convictions):

[32] For an appropriate sentence for Ivan Valovic in the circumstances, his counsel submits that a custodial sentence is not warranted and that the sentence that should be imposed are fines totalling $6250 based on $250 for each of Ivan Valovic's 25 convictions, as well as a period of probation for 6 months with the 3 statutory conditions set out under s. 75 of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, and the following condition for paying specific amounts of monetary restitution totalling $2839.02 to the following people:

(1) one-half of the amount of $855.73 to Denise Herold,

(2) the full amount of $885 to Boris Wolchak,

(3) one-half of the amount of $296.80 to Gladys Canadas,

(4) one-half of the amount of $1695 to Peter Christensen,

(5) one-half of the amount of $960.50 to Zaven Tahtadjian,

(6) one-half of the amount of $100 to Marjorie Riley.

[33] Moreover, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that as an alternative to a custodial sentence it would not be inappropriate for Ivan Valovic to be ordered to do hours of community service as part of his probation order. As well, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that if there is a concern with the protection of the public then the probation order can include an order forbidding Ivan Valovic from doing any residential electrical work.

[34] In addition, Ivan Valovic's counsel stated that Ivan Valovic has provided him approximately $5700 in funds that have been placed in counsel's trust account that Ivan Valovic offers to pay compensation to each of the 11 consumers in the amount of $250 for their respective inconvenience in having to deal with their complaints and in dealing with Ivan Valovic and his company, Ivan's Electric Ltd. This compensation amount as reparation to the 11 consumers would total $2750.

(b) For the corporation, Ivan's Electric Ltd. (25 convictions):

[35] For an appropriate sentence for Ivan's Electric Ltd. in the circumstances, counsel for Ivan's Electric Ltd. is seeking fines totaling $6250 based on $250 for each of Ivan's Electric Ltd.'s 25 convictions.

(c) For the individual, Peter Valovic (19 convictions):

[36] For an appropriate sentence for Peter Valovic in the circumstances, his counsel submits that Peter Valovic relies on the caselaw and arguments presented by Ivan Valovic's counsel and that Peter Valovic's sentence should mirror Ivan Valovic's sentence in respect to the quantum of fines, namely $250 for each of Peter Valovic's 19 convictions, which would total $4750 in fines. Moreover, counsel for Peter Valovic, submits that Peter Valovic's sentence does not have to reflect specific deterrence and accordingly, a custodial sentence is not warranted since this case does not involve any intention by Peter Valovic to defraud the consumers and his actions are more passive than his father Ivan Valovic's involvement and dealings had been with the consumers. Moreover, Peter Valovic's counsel contends that Peter Valovic's actions are at the other end of the scale of culpability and far from a true crime.

[37] In addition, Peter Valovic's counsel submits that Peter Valovic receiving probation and community service would not be inappropriate in the circumstances and it would be adequate to achieve the objectives of deterrence, reparation, and the protection of the public.

[38] For the probation order, Peter Valovic's counsel submits that it should contain the 3 statutory conditions set out under s. 72(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, and the following condition for paying specific amounts of restitution totalling $1954.02 to the following people:

(1) one-half of the amount of $855.73 to Denise Herold,

(2) one-half of the amount of $296.80 to Gladys Canadas,

(3) one-half of the amount of $1695 to Peter Christensen,

(4) one-half of the amount of $960.50 to Zaven Tahtadjian,

(5) one-half of the amount of $100 to Marjorie Riley.

(d) For the corporation, Insight Electric Inc. (20 convictions):

[39] For an appropriate sentence for Insight Electric Inc., counsel for Insight Electric Inc. is also seeking fines identical to the quantum submitted by Ivan's Electric Ltd.'s counsel, namely $250 for each of Insight Electric Inc.'s 20 convictions, which would amount to a total of $5000 in fines.

(4) COUNSEL FOR THE CONVICTED OFFENDERS, IVAN VALOVIC AND PETER VALOVIC, SUBMIT THAT CUSTODIAL SENTENCES ARE NOT APPROPRIATE OR WARRANTED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES

(a) For the individual, Ivan Valovic

[40] Counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that the sentencing cases presented by the prosecution can be distinguished from the present case, as those cases had been more fraudulent and intentional in nature and the circumstances had been where suppliers had taken large monetary deposits of tens of thousands of dollars from consumers upfront for renovation or construction work, and where the suppliers had either absconded with the money and the contracted work had not been completed or the consumers had received little or no work being done or receive any benefit from the suppliers. On the other hand, counsel submits Ivan Valovic, Ivan's Electric Ltd., Peter Valovic, and Ivan's Electric Ltd. had completed the electrical work that had been agreed to in a competent and timely fashion and which had passed inspection by the Electrical Safety Authority, and the consumers did not lose the enjoyment of their homes because neither Ivan Valovic nor Peter Valovic had left the electrical work uncompleted. Moreover, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that custodial sentences were justified in those other cases because they were more fraudulent in nature because no work had been done for the money paid upfront by those consumers while there is the absence of such intentional or fraudulent conduct in the present case.

[41] In addition, counsel for Ivan Valovic contends that a custodial sentence is not appropriate for Ivan Valovic because Ivan Valovic is now 70 years old, retired from being an electrician, and his company, Ivan's Electric Ltd. has ceased to operate as an active business. In addition, the Ivan's Electric Ltd. red van has been sold for scrap and that he only does electrical work for his own properties.

[42] But more importantly submits counsel for Ivan Valovic, all the consumers in the present case had the electrical work they had contracted for completed and approved by electrical inspectors from the Electrical Safety Authority, except for two agreements for future work involving Denise Herold and Boris Wolchak in which deposits had been provided and in which the two consumers had cancelled the work, but they had eventually received partial refunds from Ivan Valovic. Furthermore, it is submitted that none of the 11 consumers lost the enjoyment of their homes for a long period of time. In addition, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that the present case is not the situation where a contractor had induced a consumer to enter into an agreement for renovation and electrical work and then took a large deposit of tens of thousands of dollars and then absconded or did no or little of work for the consumer, which in essence was a fraudulent and intentional act that is close to a true crime.

[43] Also, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that in the present case both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic had believed that their transactions with the consumers were not covered by the direct agreement provisions because of a legal opinion from their lawyer and from comments made by an Electrical Safety Authority tribunal that their transactions with consumers were not covered by the direct agreement provisions of the CPA 2002. And, even though it has been held that their transactions were indeed covered by the direct agreement provisions of the CPA 2002 and that "ignorance of the law" is not a defence, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic did not intentionally contravene the CPA 2002 or mislead consumers in respect to providing consumers with improper contracts and that as soon as Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic were charged under the first information they had changed their proposals and agreements forms to include the 10-day cooling off period statement. In addition, it is submitted their dealings with the consumers and their failure to inform potential consumers on the telephone that Ivan's Electric Ltd. was no longer licenced and that Insight Electric Inc. would be doing the work, as well as what their fees would be for emergency service and that their fees included charging for their time to travel to the consumer's residence, had been through negligence and not as a result of intentional or fraudulent deception, since the consumers would be provided with a written estimate prior to them commencing any electrical work for the consumer and that the consumer would be told at the consumer's residence who would be doing the job.

[44] Furthermore, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that Ivan Valovic's conviction for tax evasion had occurred 17 years ago and for which he had already been punished. As well, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that the Income Tax Act is different legislation, which does not involve consumer protection.

[45] In addition, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that Ivan Valovic has been diagnosed with prostate cancer in April of 2017 and had been undergoing, in September and October of 2017, daily radiation treatment in a hospital, and as a result, has low energy. Furthermore, counsel submits that Ivan Valovic's knee and hip have been deteriorating and that he cannot bend his knee because of an accident that had occurred when he was 22 years old, in which he had been crushed between two vehicles. Moreover, counsel submits that Ivan Valovic also needs to have his knee replaced. In addition, counsel submits that Ivan Valovic has difficulty walking and getting up and that one of his legs is shorter than the other. As a result, Ivan Valovic has been issued a disability permit for a motor vehicle.

[46] Also, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that Ivan Valovic's wife of 45 years is also undergoing cancer treatment to keep her cancer in remission, in which she has to attend every three weeks for a full day of treatment for the rest of her life, to keep the cancer in remission.

[47] Moreover, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that the Pre-Sentence Report dated September 28, 2017, prepared for Ivan Valovic indicates that Ivan Valovic would be a manageable risk in the community and a suitable candidate for a period of community supervision by a probation officer.

[48] In addition, counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that Ivan Valovic agrees to do community service.

(b) For the individual, Peter Valovic

[49] Counsel for Peter Valovic also submits that a custodial sentence is not appropriate for Peter Valovic and relies on the same submissions, case law, and circumstances submitted by Ivan Valovic's counsel. In addition, counsel for Peter Valovic submits that Peter Valovic does not need to be specifically deterred when imposing a fit sentence.

[50] In addition, counsel for Peter Valovic submits there are no parallel sentencing cases or cases that involve the same circumstances as the present case where the work contracted for by consumers had been completed competently by the suppliers, and whose work had been passed by Electrical Safety Authority inspectors, and where the consumers never lost enjoyment of their homes, and where the suppliers as in the present case had been convicted of providing improper contracts, engaging in unfair practices, and for failing to provide refunds.

[51] Furthermore, counsel for Peter Valovic submits that Peter Valovic's company, Insight Electric Inc., had received a "Best of 2017 HomeStars" award recently and many testimonials from consumers.

[52] But more significantly, counsel for Peter Valovic submits that during the time of the consumer complaints involving his father, Ivan Valovic, Peter Valovic had been living in his father's house, and that there had been an imbalance between Peter Valovic and his father, who had 30 years of experience and had taught Peter Valovic as an apprentice electrician. And, that because of the trouble his father, Ivan Valovic, had in renewing his master electrician's licence and in renewing Ivan's Electric Ltd.'s electrical contractor's licence, Ivan Valovic had approached Peter Valovic about joining Peter Valovic's company. Peter Valovic then allowed his father, Ivan Valovic, to do electrical work for Insight Electric Inc.

[53] In addition, counsel for Peter Valovic submits that Peter Valovic married in 2017 and now as a new-born daughter. Furthermore, counsel for Peter Valovic submits that Peter Valovic had suffered a psychological episode in September 19, 2011, when a CBC Marketplace camera crew had filmed him at a consumer's residence for a segment of that television show.

[54] Furthermore, counsel for Peter Valovic submits that the Pre-Sentence Report dated September 28, 2017, prepared for Peter Valovic indicates that Peter Valovic would be a manageable risk in the community and a suitable candidate for a period of community supervision by a probation officer.

[55] In addition, counsel for Peter Valovic submits that Peter Valovic agrees to do community service in the form of providing education and talks to other electricians and apprentices on the Consumer Protection Act.

2. ANALYSIS AND DECISION

(a) Applicable Principles

[56] The principal objectives in sentencing for regulatory offences was held by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in R. v. Cotton Felts Ltd. (1982), 2 C.C.C. (3d) 287 (O.C.A.), to be deterrence in order to enforce regulatory standards.

[57] Furthermore, in R. v. Pellegrini, 2006 ONCJ 297, [2006] O.J. No. 3369 (O.C.J.), this court had considered the appropriate sentence for an offender convicted under the Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. B-18, which is the legislation that had preceded and been replaced by the CPA 2002. In that case, the following is a summary of the sentencing objectives, factors, and circumstances to consider in arriving at an appropriate and fit sentence for someone who had contravened the Business Practices Act (which the CPA 2002 had replaced):

To arrive at an appropriate sentence, the court must adhere to the guidance that the principal duty of a sentencing judge is to apply the established principles of sentencing in determining a just and appropriate sentence which reflects the gravity of the offence committed and the moral blameworthiness of the offender.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario established deterrence as the paramount consideration for deciding a fit sentence for a public welfare or regulatory offence. Hence, as a sentencing objective, deterrence furthers the aim of public welfare legislation to protect the physical, economic and social welfare of the public, which is essential for the proper functioning of society.

Deterrence is not to be taken only in its usual negative connotation of achieving compliance by threat of punishment. Rather, deterrence in its widest sense includes the moral or educative effect of a sentence, which emphasizes community disapproval of an act and brands it as reprehensible, thereby affecting the attitude of the public. One then hopes that a person with an attitude thus conditioned to regard conduct as reprehensible will not likely commit such an act.

This aspect of deterrence is particularly applicable to public welfare offences where it is essential for the proper functioning of society for citizens at large to expect that basic rules are established and enforced to protect the physical, economic and social welfare of the public.

Moreover, not only must the sanction used to achieve particular goals of sentencing be just, the sentencing process itself must also enjoy the acceptance and respect of the community at large. That purpose is achieved if the imposition of legal sanctions discourages both convicted offenders from re-offending and those who have yet to offend from doing so at all.

The principle of parity requires a sentencing court to impose a sentence that is similar to sentences imposed on similar offenders for similar offences committed in similar circumstances. This traditional principle of sentencing has been codified in s. 718.2(b) of the Criminal Code.

Therefore, a fit sentence should be proportional to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

(a) IMPRISONMENT AS THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE

Sentencing in Ontario's regulatory sphere has developed differently from criminal law sentencing after Ontario replaced the Summary Convictions Act with new legislation to govern the prosecution of provincial offences. Prior to the enactment of the Provincial Offences Act, 1979, regulatory or provincially created offences in Ontario and other provinces were prosecuted and tried under summary convictions legislation that virtually mimicked the procedures from the Criminal Code. The enactment of Ontario's new Provincial Offences Act, 1979 for regulatory prosecutions recognized the important distinction between regulatory or provincial offences and true crimes by repealing the summary conviction procedures that also included the provisions adopted by reference to the Criminal Code.

However, despite the distinction between regulatory offences and criminal offences, general principles of sentencing are nonetheless applicable to both regulatory and criminal offences in Ontario, such as the principle that imprisonment as a sanction should be used as the last resort. This restraint principle from the common law has now been codified in s. 718.2(d) and (e) of the Criminal Code.

This use of imprisonment only as a last resort applies to all defendants in criminal courts. These provisions require that "an offender should not be deprived of liberty, if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances," and that "all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders." Where Parliament or the Legislature has imposed no statutory minimum sentence, and the liberty of the defendant is at issue, jurists in all courts, including the provincial offences courts, should adhere to the principles of sentencing which are well-established at common law and now codified, with respect to criminal matters, in the Criminal Code. To do otherwise would be to impose more stringent penalties for quasi-criminal provincial offenses than those customary in criminal matters.

Universal principles of sentencing apply to both regulatory and criminal proceedings. However, the more important aspect is that sentencing principles contained in the Criminal Code have general applicability to both criminal and regulatory offences.

Nevertheless, as in criminal prosecutions, imprisonment for regulatory offences is appropriate when the circumstances surrounding the offence and the offender require it.

Although custodial sentences are not imposed for most regulatory offences where fault is based on negligence, incarceration is not considered to be inappropriate, on the other hand, when the nature of the regulatory offence is closer to a true crime. A different approach to sentencing is justified for regulatory offences that resemble a criminal offence and which require proof of intent or knowledge, since the sentencing objectives of denunciation, retribution and deterrence have greater consideration for these type of mens rea offences.

Not all public welfare offences are equal in gravity. Some are more serious than others. Those requiring proof of wrongful intention or knowledge are more serious, for sentencing purposes, precisely because the prosecution has proven a guilty mind in addition to the prohibited conduct. Convictions for absolute liability and strict liability offences usually suggest nothing more than the defendant has failed to meet a prescribed standard of care. However, offences like those involving an element of fault or moral blameworthiness in that they prohibit conduct which is inherently wrong tend to involve an element of fault or moral blameworthiness. Quite undeniably, the intention to defraud and the intention to lie qualify as morally blameworthy.

In practice, it appears that the courts have generally not been willing to impose lengthy jail terms for regulatory offences. Jail terms are generally considered by prosecutors and imposed by courts for behaviour that exhibits the hallmarks of crime—that is, deliberation, recklessness, stealth, and/or significant harm.

(b) Moral Blameworthiness Of Ivan Valovic And Peter Valovic's Conduct And The Gravity Of The Offences Committed

[58] Counsel for Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic contend that because the circumstances and gravity of the offences in the this case had not risen to the level of intentional and fraudulently conduct that had occurred in those cases where the offenders had taken large sums of money from individual consumers upfront before commencing the contracted work and then absconding or doing no or little work afterwards, but rather their conduct and dealings with the 11 consumers had been on the negligence side of the line of wrongful conduct, then custodial sentences would not warranted to satisfy the objectives of specific and general deterrence. Moreover, both counsel submit that custodial sentences were rightly imposed in those cases where convicted offenders had deliberately or intentionally made misrepresentations to consumers to obtain agreements from the consumers for renovation or construction type work and had taken large deposits from the consumers with no intention of doing or completing any of the work they had been contracted to do, which would be conduct of a fraudulent nature.

[59] In this respect, such intentional and fraudulent conduct is not present in respect to Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic's dealings with the 11 consumers in this case. Moreover, the consumers in the present case had received the electrical work they had bargained for from Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic (except for the two consumers, Denise Herold and Boris Wolchak who had paid deposits and contracted for future work, which the two consumers subsequently cancelled and had a part of their deposit refunded).

[60] Furthermore, counsel for both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic submit that this case had been about a mistaken belief that there agreements were not direct agreements, since it was the consumers who had called and solicited them to attend their respective residences. Moreover, both counsel submit that both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic had been negligent in not informing consumers on the telephone before they attended the consumers' residences about their emergency hourly rates and which company would be actually appearing to do the electrical work, and that they also had a mistaken belief that they were entitled to keep reasonable compensation from the consumers' deposits even when a consumer had cancelled the agreement to do electrical work.

[61] In that respect, in Kent Roach's textbook, Criminal Law, 2nd ed. (2000) (Toronto, Canada: Irwin Law Inc., 2000), Chapter 4, section 4(D), at p. 171, it was noted that Lamer C.J. in Wholesale Travel Group, had emphasized that a conviction for misleading advertising will not "brand the accused as being dishonest," but, in many cases, would indicate that the accused had been careless or negligent.

(c) Ivan Valovic Has A Conviction For Tax Evasion And For Filing False Returns

[62] Ivan Valovic was convicted on twenty-two counts under the Income Tax Act for tax evasion and for filing false returns relating to income and GST. The total sum evaded was approximately $128,000.00. Ivan Valovic, his wife, and Ivan's Electric Ltd. received fines of approximately $255,000.00. In addition, Ivan Valovic and his wife were each sentenced to 45 days of imprisonment, but the prison terms were overturned on the sentence appeal by Belleghem J. in R. v. Valovic, [2009] O.J. No. 6494 (S.C.J.O.).

[63] In addition, the Review Panel of the Electrical Safety Authority had found that Ivan Valovic had not acted with honest and integrity in respect to consumers: Ivan Valovic and Ivan's Electric C. v. Director, Licensing and Certification (Electrical Safety Authority), 26 August 2011, NOAL 09-13 and NOAL 09-14.

(d) Electrical Work Contracted For By Consumers Had Been Fully Completed In A Timely Fashion And Approved By Electrical Inspectors

[64] This was not the case in which consumers had paid a substantial deposit for electrical work in which no or little work had been completed, except for the two consumers who had paid a deposit for future electrical and then cancelled the work and did not receive full refunds. Except for those two consumers, the electrical work that had been contracted for by the remaining consumers had been completed in a timely and competent manner and had passed inspection by the electrical inspectors.

[65] However, there had been three unfair practice situations where Ivan Valovic, after entering into an agreement with three consumers, then convinced the three consumers to enter into a second agreement for additional work that was supposedly not covered by the original agreement, but which should have been part of the original agreement.

[66] Furthermore, the cases cited by the prosecution to support a custodial sentence were for situations in which a substantial deposit for home improvement or renovation work had been paid by consumers to contractors and where the suppliers had either absconded with the deposits or where they provided little or no work in return.

(e) Restitution Has Been Agreed To Be Paid By Both Ivan Valovic And Peter Valovic

[67] Counsel for both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic submit that their clients have agreed to pay the monetary restitution in the amounts and to the consumers that had been sought by the prosecution.

(f) Ivan Valovic Offers To Pay A $250 Inconvenience Payment As Reparation To Each Of The 11 Consumers For Their Inconvenience In Dealing With Ivan Valovic And His Company, Ivan's Electric Ltd.

[68] Counsel for Ivan Valovic submits that Ivan Valovic has provided money that is being held in counsel's trust account to make the restitution payments to the specified consumers and the $250 reparation payments to all 11 consumers in this case who had been inconvenienced in their dealings with Ivan Valovic and Ivan's Electric Ltd.

[69] This pre-sentencing action by Ivan Valovic demonstrates an effort of rehabilitation by Ivan Valovic and an act of contrition and reparation towards the consumers.

[70] In R. v. Scarcella, [2006] O.J. No. 1555 (S.C.J.O.), at paras. 62 and 63, Watt J. ordered restitution in the amount of 2 million dollars be paid to a victim who had been accidentally wounded in an attempt by the shooter who had intended to kill someone else in the restaurant in which the victim happened to be in. The victim became a paraplegic as a result of being shot in the spine. The accused had agreed to provide the victim the 2 million dollars in restitution. And, although the restitution of 2 million dollars had been ordered to be paid to the victim, Watt J. strongly emphasized that restitution is not some "get out of jail early" card to be played to take a sentence out of a range that would otherwise be appropriate.

(g) The Following Sanctions Will Satisfy The Sentencing Objectives Of Specific And General Deterrence, Protection Of The Public, Denunciation, Rehabilitation, Reparation, And Promoting A Sense Of Responsibility

[71] Accordingly, the following are sanctions which will satisfy the objectives of general and specific deterrence. A custodial sentence is not necessary or warranted for either Ivan Valovic or Peter Valovic to achieve deterrence. On the other hand, individual fines (including the requisite victim fine surcharge), entering a period of probation containing a restitution order will satisfy both general and specific deterrence, and specific conditions for Ivan Valovic that he pay further reparation to each of the 11 consumers for their inconvenience and that he will be prohibited from negotiating any agreements with consumers for electrical work in residential houses will also achieve the objectives of protecting the public, denunciation, reparation, rehabilitation, and promoting a sense of responsibility:

(i) For the individual, Ivan Valovic (25 convictions)

[72] In the present case, Ivan Valovic had been the person who had primarily dealt, negotiated, and entered into the agreements with the 11 consumers in the present case, and who prepared the improper contracts that did not list or contain sufficient details for the prices of the parts and services to be provided, and who had convinced several of the consumers (Peter Christensen, Nigel Lundie, and Zaven Tahtadjian) that additional work was needed to be done that had not been included in the initial agreement, but which made it difficult for consumers to question or challenge whether that additional work should have been included in the initial agreement, since the initial agreement did not list or contain sufficient detail of the parts and services that were to be provided. Moreover, Ivan Valovic was the one mainly responsible for preparing and providing the improper contracts, engaging in unfair practices, and refusing to provide a refund to the consumers (although he did eventually provide a partial refund to Denise Herold and Boris Wolchak, both who had given Ivan Valovic a deposit worth approximately 30% of the value of the future electrical work that they had agreed to have done). In addition, it was Ivan Valovic who had also processed the consumers' credit cards for payment and who had subsequently corresponded with a consumer's credit card company and the Better Business Bureau in respect to the consumers' complaints.

[73] However, this was not the case where Ivan Valovic had taken large deposits and absconded or had provided little or no work in return. Nor had the electrical work been substandard or taken a long time to complete. The electrical work that the consumers had contracted for had been completed in a timely and competent manner and had been inspected and passed by the electrical inspectors. Moreover, the consumers did not lose the enjoyment of their property because the electrical work had not been completed or abandoned.

[74] And, although Ivan Valovic had acted contrary to the CPA 2002 with the consumers in this case, most of the complaints from the consumers were in respect to overcharging, but evidence of overcharging as an unfair practice had not been established at trial. However, the conduct that was unfair to the consumers involved not informing consumers on the telephone what the emergency hourly rates were and who was actually going to appear to do the job; not refunding the deposits to two consumers (Denise Herold and Boris Wolchak when they had cancelled their jobs before any work had been started) and by convincing three of the consumers that additional work had been required that had not been included in the initial agreement when it should have been. In addition, Ivan Valovic had taken advantage of the vulnerability of some of the consumers during cold winter days or during other critical times, such as when the consumer Zaven Tahtadjian had lost power to his house and because of Tahtadjian's wife's health, Tahtadjian could not take his wife to a motel for the night, yet Ivan Valovic convinced Tahtadjian to pay more money for additional work that should have been included in the initial agreement. Or when a consumer had lost power during the "ice storm" of December 2013 and Ivan Valovic convinced Nigel Lundie that additional work was required to be done that had not been part of the initial agreement, but should have been.

[75] However, because of Ivan Valovic's health, age, his wife's health, and since his company, Ivan's Electric Ltd.'s electrical contractor's licence has not been renewed nor has his master electrician licence been renewed, and because this case is not one in which many consumers had paid large monetary deposits upfront to a supplier and then the supplier absconding with the money or that the consumers had received little or nothing in return from the supplier, a custodial sentence would be harsh and is not warranted to achieve specific deterrence. On the other hand, requiring Ivan Valovic to pay fines totalling $11,250 (including the requisite victim fine surcharge) for his 25 convictions, being on Probation for a period of two years with the 3 statutory conditions, including a condition forbidding Ivan Valovic from negotiating any agreements to do electrical work for consumers in residential homes, payment of monetary restitution in the amount of $2839.02 to specific consumers, paying reparation of $250 to each of the 11 consumers for their inconvenience in their dealings with Ivan Valovic and Ivan's Electric Ltd. totalling $2750, will achieve the objectives of specific deterrence, general deterrence, protection of the public, denunciation, rehabilitation, reparation, and promoting a sense of responsibility.

(ii) For the corporation, Ivan's Electric Ltd. (25 convictions)

[76] Although Ivan's Electric Ltd. has not been wound up, the Electrical Safety Authority has not renewed its electrical contractor's licence and will not likely do so without a qualified master electrician.

[77] Therefore, fines totalling $11,750 (including the requisite victim fine surcharge) will be imposed on Ivan's Electric Ltd. for its 25 convictions in respect to the objectives of specific and general deterrence, protection of the public, and denunciation.

(iii) For the individual, Peter Valovic (19 convictions)

[78] Although there was a power imbalance between Peter Valovic and his father, Ivan Valovic, when Ivan Valovic came to do work for Peter Valovic's company, Insight Electric Inc., Peter Valovic was still responsible for Ivan Valovic's conduct and unfair practices with the consumers in which his company Insight Electric Inc. had been involved with. Moreover, Peter Valovic had been acquainted with the CPA 2002 and had failed to properly supervise his father Ivan Valovic to prevent any unfair practices being committed or to ensure that refunds were being properly made to consumers.

[79] In addition, because of the confusion on whether the agreements with the consumers were in law direct agreements is a mitigating circumstance because even though ignorance of the law is not a defense, it certainly is a mitigating factor on sentencing.

[80] In addition, Peter Valovic was not the person primarily dealing or negotiating the agreements with the consumers in this case, although he still failed to properly supervise his father, Ivan Valovic, who had primarily dealt and negotiated with the consumers. As such, Peter Valovic's sanctions will be much less than that which would be imposed on his father, Ivan Valovic.

[81] To address the sentencing objectives of specific deterrence, general deterrence, protection of the public, denunciation, rehabilitation, reparation, and promoting a sense of responsibility, a custodial sentence is not warranted or justified for Peter Valovic. Those objectives can be properly achieved by Peter Valovic paying fines totalling $8,500 (including the requisite victim fine surcharge) for his 19 convictions, Probation for a period of 6 months with the 3 statutory conditions and a condition to pay restitution in the amount of $1954.02 to specific consumers.

(iv) For the corporation, Insight Electric Inc. (20 convictions)

[82] Insight Electric Inc. is still an active and ongoing business. It appears that Peter Valovic has greatly rehabilitated his company Insight Electric Inc.'s image and reputation in the community, evidenced by his company receiving the "Best of 2017 HomeStars" award and in his company receiving numerous consumer testimonials.

[83] In respect to Insight Electric Inc.'s 20 convictions, fines totalling $10,000 (including the requisite victim fine surcharge) will be imposed in respect to the objectives of specific and general deterrence, protection of the public, and denunciation.

3. DISPOSITION

[84] After consideration of the circumstances and moral blameworthiness of the two convicted offenders, and the nature and gravity of the offences committed by Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic, and in consideration of the objectives and principles applicable to imposing a proper and fit sentence for each individual offender for each of the regulatory offences for which they were convicted of committing respectively under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 30, Sched. A, custodial sentences are not warranted or justified to be imposed on either Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic. The objectives of specific and general deterrence, denunciation, protection of the public, rehabilitation, reparations to the consumers, promoting a sense of responsibility in the offenders, and acknowledgement by the offenders of the harm done to the consumers can be accomplished by having both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic pay appropriate and significant monetary fines (including the requisite victim fine surcharges); by both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic being placed on probation for two years and 6 months respectively, with the 3 statutory conditions set out in s. 72(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, and with an additional condition for both Ivan Valovic and Peter Valovic to make specific restitution payments to some of the consumers; and with additional conditions in Ivan Valovic's probation order, that Ivan Valovic pay a monetary amount of $250 to each of the 11 consumers as reparation for their general inconvenience in their respective matters with Ivan Valovic and Ivan's Electric Ltd., and that Ivan Valovic is prohibited from negotiating any agreements with any consumer for providing electrician services for residential houses or dwellings.

(a) The apportionment of fines:

[85] Ivan's Electric Ltd. will pay monetary fines totalling $11,750 (including the requisite victim fine surcharge) for its 25 convictions.

[86] Ivan Valovic will pay monetary fines totalling $11,250 (including the requisite victim fine surcharge) for his 25 convictions.

[87] Insight Electric Inc. will pay monetary fines totalling $10,000 (including the requisite victim fine surcharge) for its 20 convictions.

[88] Peter Valovic will pay monetary fines totalling $8500 (including the requisite victim fine surcharge) for his 19 convictions.

[89] The fines are specifically applied to the following counts in the three informations:

(1) In respect to the consumer Denise Herold

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
005731	count 1	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$250
005731	count 2	director – fail to ensure corporation provide proper contract	Ivan Valovic	$250
005731	count 3	fail to provide refund	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$1000
005731	count 4	director – fail to ensure corporation provide refund	Ivan Valovic	$500

(2) In respect to the consumer Gladys Canadas

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
005731	count 7	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$250
005731	count 7	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$250
005731	count 8	fail to provide refund	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$0
005731	count 8	fail to provide refund	Ivan Valovic	$0

(3) In respect to the consumer Catherine Telford

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
005731	count 9	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$250
005731	count 9	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$250

(4) In respect to the consumer Peter Christensen

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
005731	count 11	unfair practice	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$1000
005731	count 11	unfair practice	Ivan Valovic	$1000
005731	count 11	unfair practice	Insight Electric Inc.	$1000
005731	count 12	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$500
005731	count 12	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$500
005731	count 12	improper contract	Insight Electric Inc.	$500
005731	count 13	director – fail to ensure corporation provide proper contract	Peter Valovic	$500
005731	count 14	fail to provide refund	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$500
005731	count 14	fail to provide refund	Ivan Valovic	$500
005731	count 14	fail to provide refund	Insight Electric Inc.	$500
005731	count 15	director – fail to ensure corporation provide refund	Peter Valovic	$500

(5) In respect to the consumer Eva Patterson

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
005740	count 1	unfair practice	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$500
005740	count 1	unfair practice	Ivan Valovic	$500
005740	count 1	unfair practice	Insight Electric Inc.	$500
005740	count 1	unfair practice	Peter Valovic	$500
005740	count 2	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$250
005740	count 2	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$250
005740	count 2	improper contract	Insight Electric Inc.	$250
005740	count 2	improper contract	Peter Valovic	$250

(6) In respect to the consumer Nigel Lundie

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
005740	count 4	unfair practice	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$1000
005740	count 4	unfair practice	Ivan Valovic	$1000
005740	count 4	unfair practice	Insight Electric Inc.	$1000
005740	count 4	unfair practice	Peter Valovic	$1000
005740	count 5	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$500
005740	count 5	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$500
005740	count 5	improper contract	Insight Electric Inc.	$500
005740	count 5	improper contract	Peter Valovic	$500

(7) In respect to the consumer Sandra Castator

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
8091	count 1	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$250
8091	count 1	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$250
8091	count 1	improper contract	Insight Electric Inc.	$250
8091	count 2	director – fail to ensure corporation provide proper contract	Peter Valovic	$250

(8) In respect to the consumer Terry Bardeau

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
8091	count 5	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$250
8091	count 5	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$250
8091	count 5	improper contract	Insight Electric Inc.	$250
8091	count 6	director – fail to ensure corporation provide proper contract	Peter Valovic	$250
8091	count 7	unfair practice	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$500
8091	count 7	unfair practice	Ivan Valovic	$500
8091	count 7	unfair practice	Insight Electric Inc.	$500
8091	count 8	director – fail to prevent corporation from engaging in unfair practice	Peter Valovic	$500

(9) In respect to the consumer Marjorie Riley

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
8091	count 9	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$250
8091	count 9	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$250
8091	count 9	improper contract	Insight Electric Inc.	$250
8091	count 10	director – fail to ensure corporation provide proper contract	Peter Valovic	$250
8091	count 11	unfair practice	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$500
8091	count 11	unfair practice	Ivan Valovic	$500
8091	count 11	unfair practice	Insight Electric Inc.	$500
8091	count 12	director – fail to prevent corporation from engaging in unfair practice	Peter Valovic	$500
8091	count 13	fail to refund	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$0
8091	count 13	fail to refund	Ivan Valovic	$0
8091	count 13	fail to refund	Insight Electric Inc.	$0
8091	count 14	director – fail to prevent corporation from failing to provide refund	Peter Valovic	$0

(10) In respect to the consumer Zaven Tahtadjian

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
8091	count 15	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$500
8091	count 15	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$500
8091	count 15	improper contract	Insight Electric Inc.	$500
8091	count 16	director – fail to ensure corporation provide proper contract	Peter Valovic	$500
8091	count 17	unfair practice	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$1000
8091	count 17	unfair practice	Ivan Valovic	$1000
8091	count 17	unfair practice	Insight Electric Inc.	$1000
8091	count 18	director – fail to prevent corporation from engaging in unfair practice	Peter Valovic	$1000
8091	count 19	fail to refund	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$500
8091	count 19	fail to refund	Ivan Valovic	$500
8091	count 19	fail to refund	Insight Electric Inc.	$500
8091	count 20	director – fail to prevent corporation from failing to provide refund	Peter Valovic	$500

(11) In respect to the consumer Boris Wolchak

Info. #	Count #	Category of Offence	Name of Offender	Amount of Fine
8091	count 21	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$250
8091	count 21	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$250
8091	count 21	improper contract	Insight Electric Inc.	$250
8091	count 22	director – fail to ensure corporation provide proper contract	Peter Valovic	$250
8091	count 23	unfair practice	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$500
8091	count 23	unfair practice	Ivan Valovic	$500
8091	count 23	unfair practice	Insight Electric Inc.	$500
8091	count 24	director – fail to prevent corporation from engaging in unfair practice	Peter Valovic	$500
8091	count 25	improper contract	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$250
8091	count 25	improper contract	Ivan Valovic	$250
8091	count 25	improper contract	Insight Electric Inc.	$250
8091	count 26	director – fail to ensure corporation provide proper contract	Peter Valovic	$250
8091	count 27	fail to refund	Ivan's Electric Ltd.	$1000
8091	count 27	fail to refund	Ivan Valovic	$1000
8091	count 27	fail to refund	Insight Electric Inc.	$1000
8091	count 28	director – fail to prevent corporation from failing to provide refund	Peter Valovic	$500

(b) PROBATION:

(i) For Ivan Valovic:

[90] For Ivan Valovic, a two-year period of probation with the 3 statutory conditions set out under s. 72(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33:

(a) not to commit the same or any related or similar offence, or any offence under a statute of Canada or Ontario or any other province of Canada that is punishable by imprisonment;

(b) appear before the court as and when required; and

[91] And the following condition in the probation order that Ivan Valovic makes monetary restitution totalling $2839.02 to the following people in the following amounts:

(1) $427.87 (one-half of the amount of $855.73) to Denise Herold,

(2) $885 (full amount) to Boris Wolchak,

(3) $148.40 (one-half of the amount of $296.80) to Gladys Canadas,

(4) $847.50 (one-half of the amount of $1695) to Peter Christensen,

(5) $480.25 (one-half of the amount of $960.50) to Zaven Tahtadjian,

(6) $50 (one-half of the amount of $100) to Marjorie Riley.

[92] And the following condition in the probation order that Ivan Valovic makes monetary reparation of $250 to the following 11 consumers for their respective inconvenience in their dealings with Ivan Valovic and Ivan's Electric Ltd. totalling $2750:

(1) $250 payment to Denise Herold,

(2) $250 payment to Gladys Canadas,

(3) $250 payment to Catherine Telford,

(4) $250 payment to Peter Christensen,

(5) $250 payment to Eva Patterson,

(6) $250 payment to Nigel Lundie,

(7) $250 payment to Sandra Castator,

(8) $250 payment to Terry Bardeau,

(9) $250 payment to Marjorie Riley,

(10) $250 payment to Zaven Tahtadjian, and

(11) $250 payment to Boris Wolchak.

[93] And the following condition in the probation order that Ivan Valovic is "prohibited from negotiating any agreements with any consumer for providing electrician services for residential houses or dwellings".

(ii) For Peter Valovic:

[94] For Peter Valovic, a 6-month period of probation with the 3 statutory conditions set out under s. 72(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33:

(a) not to commit the same or any related or similar offence, or any offence under a statute of Canada or Ontario or any other province of Canada that is punishable by imprisonment;

(b) appear before the court as and when required; and

[95] And the following condition in the probation order that Peter Valovic makes monetary restitution totalling $1954.02 to the following people in the following amounts:

(1) $427.87 (one-half of the amount of $855.73) to Denise Herold,

(2) $148.40 (one-half of the amount of $296.80) to Gladys Canadas,

(3) $847.50 (one-half of the amount of $1695) to Peter Christensen,

(4) $480.25 (one-half of the amount of $960.50) to Zaven Tahtadjian,

(5) $50 (one-half of the amount of $100) to Marjorie Riley.

[96] All 4 offenders will have 6 months to pay their respective fines, restitution, and reparations.

Dated at the City of Brampton on March 8, 2018.

QUON J.P.

Ontario Court of Justice