Court Information

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: September 25, 2025

Provincial Offences Act Information No.: 3160 999 20 5459

Between: Workplace Safety and Insurance Board — and — Aqib Rahman

Before: Justice G.P. Renwick

Heard on: 19 September 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: 25 September 2025

Counsel

A. Brar — Counsel for the Respondent Workplace Safety and Insurance Board

Aqib Rahman — Acting for himself as the Applicant

Decision on Motion Under S. 85(1) of the Provincial Offences Act

RENWICK J.:

Introduction

[1] Before me is a motion to extend the time to file a Provincial Offences Act ("POA" hereafter) appeal following a guilty plea to two offences under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act ("WSIA" hereafter).

[2] Given that the Applicant's Notice of Motion, dated 12 November 2024, indicates he seeks "Aquittal [sic] of both charges," this is clearly a motion brought to extend time to file a conviction appeal.

Background

[3] The Applicant pleaded guilty to two offences before Her Worship Justice of the Peace N. Krayzman on 13 July 2021. He was fined $2500 on each count and given two years to pay the fines and applicable surcharges.

[4] On 29 September 2023, the Applicant completed a "Notice of Motion" and "General Form for Affidavit" to launch an appeal and to waive payment of the fine. Interestingly, the paperwork filed did not indicate whether the appeal related either to the conviction, the sentence, or both. In terms of the merits of the actual appeal, the affidavit only claimed that "the fine imposed on me is not reasonable."

[5] That Application for an extension of time to file an appeal was heard and granted by Her Honour Justice N. Kastner on 19 January 2024. The Applicant was permitted 60 days to file his appeal, and he entered into a recognizance on that date (19 January 2024) for the amount of the fine and surcharges ($6250).

[6] On 20 September 2024, the Applicant appeared for the hearing of his appeal before His Honour Justice N. Singh. On that date, at line 16 on page 7 of the transcript the following exchange took place:

Court: So, so, Mr. Rahman, you're looking for a varied sentence. You're not looking to withdraw the guilty plea, is that right?

Applicant: I'm looking for a varied sentence, Your Honour.

[7] Although it appeared that the Applicant was abandoning a conviction appeal in favour of proceeding only on a sentence appeal, the matter was adjourned part-way through the hearing to permit the Applicant time to file more materials about his claim that the guilty plea was uninformed in terms of the Agreed Statement of Fact ("ASF" hereafter), filed during the guilty plea.

[8] On the return date (18 October 2024), the Applicant appeared again before His Honour Justice N. Singh. Again, the merits of the conviction appeal were discussed. On page 9 of the transcript at line 12, the following exchange took place:

Court: So I'd like to hear your submissions as to why your matter – and, and, first, first – my first question is what relief are you seeking, are you seeking a new trial, are you seeking an acquittal, what is the relief that you're seeking?

Applicant: I'm seeking an, an acquittal or…alternatively, if you see my – if you were able to review my factum? …It's asking you to dismiss the charges – I mean, the, the, the penalty against me, and there's a reason why I said what I said about the 45 minutes – and I didn't get to finish why I said that.

[9] There was much discussion during the hearing of the appeal with respect to the claim that the guilty plea involved facts contained within an unsigned ASF. Also, the Applicant alleged that he was uninformed about the contents of the ASF.

[10] At line 22 of page 35 of the transcript from 18 October 2024, the following exchange with the court took place:

Applicant: If, if, if that was not the issue, then I guess I – there's no reason to argue it, that point that I, I think we should just move to the sentence.

Court: Okay. All right. So do I have it clear that you are – after hearing from Madam Crown, you're abandoning your appeal as to conviction?

Applicant: Yes, Your Honour.

[11] Although there continued to be some discussion about the facts that were agreed to during the guilty plea, the following exchange, at p. 37, confirmed the Applicant's intention to abandon his conviction appeal:

Court: Understood, okay. So having heard Madam Prosecutor's position, what say you to your appeal, are you going to – are you prepared to abandon the appeal as to conviction and argue the sentence?

Applicant: Yes, I would like to argue the, the, the costs, please.

Court: Okay. What was the sentence in this matter?

[12] Thereafter, the appeal was determined solely on the basis of the alleged impropriety of the sentence imposed at trial.

Analysis

[13] The issues to be decided on this Application are:

i. Has the Applicant already brought an Application to extend time to file a conviction appeal in this matter;

ii. What is the effect of the Applicant's decision to abandon his conviction appeal during the hearing of his earlier appeal of the conviction based upon his guilty plea; and

iii. Does the Application have any merit.

Issue #1: The Application is Statute-Barred

[14] The first issue to be decided is whether the Application is barred by statute.

[15] The POA is the governing legislation pertaining to appeals of convictions of provincial statutes, such as the WSIA.

[16] The Respondent relies upon s. 85(2) of the POA, which reads:

Limit on number of applications – No more than one application for an extension of the time for filing of an appeal may be made in respect of a conviction.

[17] There are sound policy reasons for limiting the number of applications made to extend the time to file POA appeals: The avoidance of multiple appeals in respect of the same matter and finality.

[18] Without such a rule, unscrupulous Applicants might take advantage of the POA Appeal Court to launch successive frivolous appeals to avoid penalties associated with conviction.

[19] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that the Applicant has already filed a conviction appeal in respect of this matter.

[20] Although the paperwork first filed 29 September 2023 to seek an extension of time to appeal is silent on whether the appeal was sought in respect of conviction, sentence, or both, the matter has always been treated as a conviction and sentence appeal.

[21] This is discernable in the submissions made before Justice Kastner seeking time to file the original appeal, the materials filed on the original appeal, and the submissions made during the hearing of the appeal before Justice Singh on 20 September and 18 October 2024.

[22] Though it is by no means dispositive, I also note that the Respondent has always treated the appeal as one relating to conviction and sentence.

[23] I have been given no jurisprudence to suggest any other interpretation to s. 85(2) of the Act. On its plain reading, this subsection precludes a motion to extend time to file a second conviction appeal.

[24] In light of this, the Application for an extension to file another appeal in respect of the Applicant's conviction is statute-barred.

Issue #2: The Conviction Appeal Has Already Been Dismissed

[25] Justice Singh heard the Applicant fully on the issues he sought (and continues to raise) in respect of his convictions: The ASF was improper because it was not signed and the Applicant had no knowledge of its contents.

[26] During the hearing of his conviction appeal, the Applicant abandoned his appeal. That is without question. The only possible question arising from that is whether or not His Honour dismissed the conviction appeal.

[27] On the face of the transcript, His Honour treated the conviction appeal as abandoned. Again, while not dispositive, the Respondent also accepted the Applicant's concession.

[28] On 18 October 2024, Justice Singh treated the conviction appeal as ended. His Honour ruled solely on the sentence appeal. That appeal was allowed to the extent of granting a further three years to pay the outstanding fines and surcharges.

[29] There is nothing in the transcript, nor any submission made during the hearing of this Application to convince me that His Honour did not dismiss the conviction appeal (as abandoned). Nor have I been given any jurisprudence to convince me that the appeal judge's treatment of the abandonment of the conviction appeal was improper or that the appeal court left open the matter for consideration on another day.

[30] I find that the Applicant agreed to have the POA Appeal Court dismiss his conviction appeal.

[31] I further find that I have no jurisdiction to permit an extension of time to file an appeal of the POA Appeal Court's dismissal of the Applicant's conviction appeal.

Issue #3: There is No Merit to the Application

[32] I have been given no actual reason why the Applicant failed to file an appeal of his conviction within the statutory period. None has been provided in any of the materials filed or any submissions made.

[33] I have considered the proposed grounds of appeal and find that there is no merit to the claims alleged (an improper ASF was filed without the Applicant's knowledge or understanding of its contents). The Applicant was represented by counsel. The Applicant was present during the guilty plea. To this date, the Applicant has not filed any affidavit or evidence from his former counsel to substantiate any of his specious claims.

[34] Given the short turnaround after the dismissal of the conviction appeal (at the Applicant's request) by Justice Singh and the filing of the paperwork for this extension of time to file an appeal, I find that the Applicant is attempting to manipulate the POA process to his advantage.

Conclusion

[35] The motion to extend time to file a conviction appeal is dismissed.

[36] For the sake of clarity, I will make the following observations:

i. The recognizance entered into by the Applicant before Justice Kastner is spent;

ii. The Applicant must pay his fines and surcharges within the three years granted by Justice Singh on 18 October 2024; and

iii. There can be no further motion to extend the time to file a conviction appeal in respect of this Information (3160 999 20 5459).

Released: 25 September 2025

Justice G. Paul Renwick