DATE AND PARTIES
DATE: January 21, 2025
IN THE MATTER OF the Trespass To Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21
Between
Corporation Of The City of Brampton
prosecutor
and
Faisal Moeen
defendant
Ontario Court of Justice
Brampton, Ontario
Quon J.P.
Reasons for Judgment
Trial held on: August 15, 2024 and November 18, 2024
Judgment released: January 21, 2025
Charges: s. 2(1)(b) T.P.A. – “fail to leave premises when directed”
Counsel:
- Marsico, L., municipal prosecutor
- Moeen, Faisal, self-represented
Cases Considered or Referred To
- Cloutier v. Langlois, 1990 SCC 122, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 158
- Fleming v. Ontario, 2019 SCC 45, [2019] 3 S.C.R. 519
- R. v. Asante-Mensah, 2003 SCC 38, [2003] S.C.J. No. 38
- R. v. Grant, 2009 SCC 32, [2009] 2 S.C.R. 353
- R. v. Mann, 2004 SCC 52, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 59
- R. v. Nasogaluak, 2010 SCC 6, [2010] S.C.J. No. 6
- R. v. Sault Ste. Marie, 1978 SCC 11, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 1299
- R. v. Stairs, 2022 SCC 11, [2022] 1 S.C.R. 169
- R. v. Tim, 2022 SCC 12, [2022] S.C.J. No. 12
- R. v. Whitfield, 1969 SCC 4, [1969] S.C.J. No. 66
- Tucker v. Cadillac Fairview Corp., 2005 ONCA 24579, [2005] O.J. No. 2921
Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited
- Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 2 of the Constitution Act, 1982
- Code Of Conduct For Police Officers (Community Safety And Policing Act, 2019, S.O. 2019, c. 1, Sched. 1), Ont. Reg. 407/23
- Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s. 25(1)
- Legislation Act, 2006, S.O. 2006, c. 21, Sched. F, ss. 78 and 79
- Provincial Offences Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.33, s. 146(1)
- Trespass to Property Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. T.21, ss. 1, 2, 2(1)(b), 3, 3(2), 4, 9(1), and 9(2)
Reference Material Considered or Cited
- Body Worn Cameras, Peel Regional Police Directive, General Procedure, Issue Number I-B-173 (F), Effective Date 2022/11/29, online: Peel Regional Police Directive
- “Immediate.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immediate. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
- “Immediately.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/immediately. Accessed 15 Jan. 2025.
Exhibits Entered
- Exhibit "1": USB stick containing file entitled, “BWC_2190_140823_2219”, 21 minutes and 18 seconds of video footage recorded on Sgt. Langlois’ body-worn camera showing interaction between Sgt. Langlois and Faisal Moeen, the arrest and handcuffing of Faisal Moeen, and placement in the back of the police cruiser, recorded on August 14, 2023, from 22:19:33 to 22:40:51 hours.
- Exhibit "2": Letter from Leonard Bitri, Property Manager, on behalf of Y.L. Hendler Ltd. (Property Management and Consulting) as agents for PSCC No. 1136-Erin Mills Commercial Center, addressed to Peel Regional Police dated August 15, 2023, authorizing police to trespass on multiple locations including 4700 Ridgeway Drive, with related emails regarding authorization under the Trespass to Property Act.
- Exhibit "3": Original receipt from “Yaaron Ka Adda” Restaurant, Unit #23, 3920 Eglinton Ave West, Mississauga, dated August 14, 2023, 9:26 p.m., for $14.64 for 2 orders each of 2 different kinds of Chai Tea.
- Exhibit "4": USB stick containing file entitled, “Court-Video-ByBrother_AmerMoeen- By Defendant”, 3 minutes and 11 seconds of video footage taken by the defendant’s brother, Mian Amer Moeen, showing the arrest and handcuffing of Faisal Moeen and the defendant’s fiancée on August 14, 2023.
- Exhibit "5": Copy of letter sent by Faisal Moeen to Peel Police Chief, Deputy Chief for Peel Regional Police, Premier of Ontario, and the Mayors of Mississauga and Brampton dated August 29, 2023, regarding the incident on August 14, 2023, at 4700 Ridgeway Drive (6 pages).
1. INTRODUCTION
[1] The defendant, Faisal Moeen, was with his fiancée, brother, brother’s friend, and uncle on August 14, 2023, when Peel Regional Police arrested and charged him under s. 2(1)(b) of the Trespass to Property Act for “fail to leave premises when directed.” The defendant was at Ridgeway Plaza (officially Erin Mills Centre) at 4700 Ridgeway Drive, Mississauga, a commercial plaza with 11 units, popular for dining and shopping. August 14 is Pakistan’s Independence Day, a significant public holiday celebrated worldwide by Pakistanis.
[2] At approximately 9:54 p.m., Sgt. Langlois and other officers were sent to monitor an unsanctioned Pakistan Independence Day celebration at Ridgeway Plaza. The Peel Regional Police were authorized by the property manager to enforce the Trespass to Property Act against those not patronizing the plaza’s shops or restaurants. Complaints had been made about noise, crowds, and illegal parking. Thousands had attended the unsanctioned event on August 13, 2023, and there was concern it would recur on August 14.
[3] The prosecution alleges that while Sgt. Langlois was monitoring the event, the defendant approached him, challenged the police authority to direct people to leave, and questioned the police vehicles’ flashing lights. Due to the defendant’s confrontational conduct, Sgt. Langlois directed him to leave the property several times under the Trespass to Property Act. The defendant did not immediately leave and continued interacting with Sgt. Langlois. Sgt. Langlois turned on his body-worn camera, placed his hand on the defendant’s back and shoulder to guide him toward the public sidewalk, but the defendant continued arguing. Sgt. Langlois formed the opinion the defendant was not intending to leave immediately and arrested him as a last resort. The defendant was searched, identified, released, and given a $50 trespass ticket. The defendant then went to the police station to complain and sent letters to officials.
[4] The defendant contends his arrest and charge were unlawful, asserting he was politely querying the police and was walking toward the public sidewalk as directed. Sgt. Langlois’ testimony contradicts this, stating the defendant was confrontational, not walking off the property on his own, and that Sgt. Langlois had to guide him physically.
[5] Sgt. Langlois testified the defendant was obstreperous, did not immediately leave after multiple directions, and was arrested because he was not intending to leave immediately. The police were directing people to leave due to the unsanctioned event without permits or owner consent. The Peel Regional Police had authorization from the property manager to act under the Trespass to Property Act. Complaints about noise and parking had been received. The plaza is adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
[6] Officer Rodrigo Lopes, on Sgt. Langlois’ direction, charged the defendant with failing to leave premises when directed and issued a $50 fine. The defendant filed a Notice of Intention to Appear, with trial dates set.
[7] The trial was held over two days, with six witnesses: two for the prosecution (Sgt. Langlois and Officer Lopes) and four for the defence (defendant, his brother, uncle, and brother’s friend). The defendant’s fiancée testified only on the first day.
[8] After submissions, judgment was reserved and is now released.
2. THE CHARGE
[9] The defendant is charged under a Part I Certificate of Offence:
Certificate # 3160-0319064F:
I, Rodrigo Lopes, believe and certify that on August 14, 2023, at 10:28 PM, Faisal Moeen, of Kitchener, Ontario, at 4700 Ridgeway Drive, Mississauga, committed the offence of FAIL TO LEAVE PREMISES WHEN DIRECTED contrary to s. 2(1)(b) of the Trespass to Property Act.
Set fine: $50.00
3. BACKGROUND
(a) Testimony of Sgt. Langlois (Day 1 and 2)
Sgt. Langlois testified about the unsanctioned event at Ridgeway Plaza, the police’s authorization to enforce trespass, the confrontational interaction with the defendant, the directions to leave, the defendant’s refusal, the arrest, and the search incident to arrest. He described the video recording from his body-worn camera, the defendant’s behavior, and the police policy on body-worn cameras.
(b) Testimony of Officer Rodrigo Lopes
Officer Lopes testified about his role in issuing the trespass ticket, the large crowd at the plaza, and the police’s efforts to keep the peace.
(c) Testimony of Faisal Moeen, the Defendant
The defendant testified about his presence at the plaza, his tea purchase, his observations of the event, his approach to Sgt. Langlois, his understanding of the police authority, his compliance with directions, and his view that the arrest was unlawful.
(d) Testimony of Mian Amer Moeen, Defendant’s Brother
He testified about the video he recorded, his observations of the defendant’s movements, and his views on the police presence and the event.
(e) Testimony of Mirza Hussain, Defendant’s Uncle
He testified that the defendant was leaving when directed but was arrested nonetheless.
(f) Testimony of Roma Parvez, Defendant’s Brother’s Friend
She testified about the defendant’s movements and the celebration at the plaza.
(g) Video Recordings
Exhibit #1: Sgt. Langlois’ body-worn camera video of the interaction and arrest.
Exhibit #4: Video by Mian Amer Moeen showing the arrest.
(i) Letter by Faisal Moeen
The prosecution consented to the letter but it was not considered as evidence of truth.
4. ISSUES
The court identified 16 issues, including whether Sgt. Langlois had authority to direct the defendant to leave, whether the defendant understood and complied, the legality of the arrest and search, and whether the defence of due diligence applies.
5. ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The court analyzed the statutory provisions, definitions, and case law, including the strict liability nature of the offence, the meaning of “immediately,” and the police’s authority under the Trespass to Property Act.
The court found that Sgt. Langlois had legal authority, the defendant was directed multiple times to leave, did not immediately leave, and was lawfully arrested using reasonable force. The search incident to arrest was lawful. The defendant did not prove due diligence.
The court rejected the defendant’s claim that he was walking off the property when arrested, finding the video and testimony showed otherwise.
6. DISPOSITION
The court found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of failing to leave premises when directed under s. 2(1)(b) of the Trespass to Property Act. Due to the arrest being more punitive than the fine, no fine was imposed.
Dated at Brampton on January 21, 2025.
Quon J.P.
Ontario Court of Justice