Ontario Court of Justice

Court File No.: 4862 999 23 23201342 00

Date: April 8, 2026

Between:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING (CITY OF TORONTO)

— AND —

JORDAN ALLISON

Before: Justice of the Peace Mary A. Ross Hendriks

Heard on: October 3, 16, 17 and November 14, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on: April 8, 2026

Ms. Madison Pulfer ................................................................. counsel for the prosecution

The defendant Mr. Jordan Allison…………………………on his own behalf

JUSTICE OF THE PEACE ROSS HENDRIKS:

BACKGROUND:

[1] At the outset of establishing a short-term rental operation through Airbnb at his principal residence with his spouse, Mr. Allison allegedly ran afoul of two municipal bylaws.

[2] Mr. Jordan Allison thus faces the following charges pursuant to the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 547 ("the Toronto Municipal Code") a certified copy of which is Exhibit 1:

(1) Between May 27, 2023 and May 29, 2023, at 246 Ontario St, Toronto, did commit the offence of Did carry out the business of being a short-term rental operator without being registered as such with Municipal Licensing and Standards contrary to Chapter 547 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code (as amended), Section 1.2B; and

(2) Between May 27, 2023 and May 29, 2023 at 246 Ontario St, Toronto, did commit the offence of Being a Short-Term Rental operator did fail to ensure all advertisement for short-term rental included the corresponding operator's registration number issued by Municipal Licensing and Standards contrary to Chapter 547 of the City of Toronto Municipal Code (as amended), Section 4.3B.

[3] Mr. Allison entered pleas of not guilty to both counts.

[4] Ms. Pulfer provided the Evidence Act Notice and the Affidavit of Service, which indicated that he had been served by registered mail to 246 Ontario St, Toronto. Mr. Allison objected to this manner of service, submitting that he did not receive it. I ruled that substituted service is proper pursuant to Ontario Regulation 475/21, sections 2 and 3. Both documents were admitted as Exhibit 2.

[5] On April 16, 2025, Mr. Allison filed with the court a motion record for delay pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"), as well as filing a separate "Statement of Defence and Request for Withdrawal Or, In the Alternative, Amendment of Charges" ("Statement of Defence") pursuant to Rule 2.1 of the Criminal Rules of the Ontario Court of Justice. This Statement of Defence was also dated and filed on April 16, 2025 in anticipation of a Judicial Pre-Trial ("JPT)"), but it was not marked "without prejudice" nor was it for the exclusive use of the JPT, but rather, was part of a collection of materials filed with the court.

[6] At the outset of this matter before me, Mr. Allison brought a motion for delay pursuant to section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"), but he had not filed the necessary transcripts. I dismissed that first motion and commenced the trial, but permitted him to bring it again at the end of this trial since he submitted that he had ordered the transcripts but they were not ready. At the last day of this trial, Mr. Allison filed some but not all of the requisite transcripts, and so I dismissed this second section 11(b) motion, and proceeded to receive final oral and written final submissions.

PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE:

[7] Ms. Allison called her witness, Officer Zahid Rashid.

Testimony of Officer Zahid Rashid:

[8] Officer Zahid Rashid testified that he works for the City of Toronto as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer, at 1530 Markham Rd. He has been so employed for almost nine years. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 15).

[9] Between October 6, 2023 [sic] and May 29, 2023, Officer Rashid was working as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer with Short Term Rental. His role was to investigate any violations of the Short-Term Rental Bylaw, provide his findings and issue charges based on evidence. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 15)

[10] He conducted the investigation at 246 Ontario St, Toronto. He received an investigation request from the Bylaw Compliance Team regarding a misuse of a Short-Term Rental permit on October 6, 2023. (Ibid, at page 17).

[11] The Compliance Team had advised him that Mr. Allison used a permit which was not issued to him and did bookings using that permit. (Ibid.)

[12] As part of his investigation, Officer Rashid reviewed the Stay Data provided by Airbnb and also provided to him by Mr. Allison. Officer Rashid also checked his internal records to determine who was the owner of that permit at the time and how many bookings were made during that period using that permit under another name. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 17).

[13] Mr. Allison objected when Ms. Pulfer wanted to submit additional business record disclosure, being the Airbnb Affidavit, arguing that he had not received it. I inspected all of these documents and Ms. Pulfer proved to my satisfaction that it had been sent to him by an email system known as secure file transfer and marked as "read" on September 30, 2025 at 4:15 pm. It was entered as Exhibit 3. (Ibid, at pages 18-23).

[14] Ms. Pulfer also wished to submit an affidavit of Adriano Imperatore, of the City of Dublin, Republic of Ireland, who is a Senior Associate, Regulatory Response with Airbnb Ireland UC ("Airbnb"), dated August 14, 2025, in which Mr. Imperatore attached as Exhibit 1 its business records relating to the short-term rental bookings of Jordan Allison at 246 Ontario St, Toronto, through the Airbnb platform from May 27 to May 29, 2023. Ms. Pulfer sought to enter it as a business record. Mr. Allison objected, stating that it was unfair to see it only two weeks before the trial commenced, since he did not have any time to follow up with Airbnb and question this individual. I ruled that it would be entered as Exhibit 4 – Business Records Affidavit, but that I would permit him to file any documents he received from Airbnb to the contrary when it was his turn to testify, and noted that he had received it late in the process. (Ibid, at pages 24-28).

[15] Officer Rashid read out this business record. It provided that the "operator ID" was "STR-2110-HWCVHL". It listed the full name as Jordan Allison, and the listing address as 246 Ontario St, Toronto, M5A 2V5. The check-in date was May 27, 2023, and the check-out date was May 29, 2023. The number of nights was two, and the rental type was entire house, room. Operator consent was marked "yes". (Ibid, at pages 31-32).

[16] Officer Rashid testified that he checked his record system called Salesforce, and that the permit holder for STR-2110-HWCVHL was Jon Hyka. (Ibid, at page 32).

[17] Officer Rashid described the Salesforce system as recording online applications. The first application is entered by the person who applied. Once it is created, information is added by the officers who conduct investigations and persons who investigate any investigation request regarding that permit. Officers can enter their own comments, but each entry has the name of the person who created the inquiry. Once entries are created, they are saved and cannot be changed. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 33).

[18] Officer Rashid described Salesforce as a City of Toronto database, which they use "to issue chart of record permits". Someone who wants to apply for Short-Term rental can go to that link on the City of Toronto's website, and start their application there. Once they start their application, the individual is asked for information, such as a driver's licence. When the application is being approved, the person enters a note that the application is reviewed and approved. He added that, "we issue an email". (Ibid, at page 34).

[19] Officer Rashid described a document, labelled Salesforce in the top left corner, which included the permit number, STR-2110-HWCVHL was Jon Hyka, with an email address of Huron154@yahoo.com, and an address of 149 Seaton Street, Toronto. Officer Rashid testified that this information would have been provided by Jon Hyka. (Ibid, at page 32-35).

[20] Officer Rahid also testified that the "Activity History" on this document showed that Jon Hyka was sent an email on September 5, 2023. Within the "Renewals" section of this document, there is a "Created Date", which he said was September 26, 2022. Officer Rashid said that this was the date when that person applied for a permit. He added that the "Effective Start Date" was October 1, 2022. The "Permit Details" section is also entered by the person who applied for the permit. The "Payment" section includes the account number and the application fees. Officer Rashid said they cannot change this information entered by the applicant, but they can add their own comments under "Activity History". (Ibid, at pages 35-27).

[21] Ms. Pulfer asked that the first three pages of this Salesforce document be admitted as a business record. Mr. Allison objected, stating he had received a redacted copy of it in advance. I compared the two documents by taking a view of his redacted document, and was satisfied that they were the same document. I made the original Exhibit 5A - Business Record and the redacted copy Exhibit 5B – Business Record (Redacted Version). (Ibid, at pages 37-41).

[22] Officer Rashid identified a 9-page document labelled "Salesforce" in the top left corner, with permit/licence number STR-2305-FXCRVR and an Account in the name of Jordan Allison. He described it as a Salesforce data sheet, which was created when Mr. Allison applied for a Short-Term Rental permit. Officer Rashid said it was created in the same manner as the previous Salesforce document. (Ibid, at page 42-48).

[23] This 9-page document included an email sent to Mr. Allison, which was "assigned to" John Chua. He testified that John Chua is a compliance officer dealing with this file. On the next page, Officer Rashid identified an entry which stated, "Email: Short Term Rental Operator Registration Number-STR-2305-FXCRVR" as sent to Mr. Allison from Ginny Adey, who was "assigned to" this matter. This document was entered as Exhibit 6 on consent. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 43-44; transcript misspelled John Chua's name as John Tory).

[24] Officer Rashid reviewed Exhibit 6 and testified that the account with permit number STR-2305-FXCRVR was associated with Jordan Allison, with an email address of Jordan.allison@gmail.com, and start date of June 1, 2023. He further testified that, "the start date is the date when the permit is, he can use his permit to book on Airbnb." The address associated with this permit number is 246 Ontario Street, Toronto. (Ibid, at page 60).

[25] Officer Rashid indicated that page 3 of Exhibit 6 provided information under the heading of "Permit Details." He testified that when Mr. Allison filled in the online application, he answered the questions included in this section, as follows: Is this the address of your principal residence? True; Do you own this property? Yes; Do you rent this property? No; What type of building is this property? Single/semi-detached house; What part of the building do you live in? The entire house; Which part of the property will you be renting to guests? Drive unit and rooms with indiscernible (form states: entire unit, room(s) within the unit); and How many bedrooms can guests use? Two bedrooms. Mr. Allison's permit for 246 Ontario St, Toronto was approved on June 1, 2023. (Ibid, at pages 61-62).

[26] When asked after reviewing all of these documents what conclusions he made, Officer Rashid stated as follows:

Actually I reviewed the documents provided by Airbnb and then I also reviewed our database and checked both Permit numbers and who was the owner of the permit and which property these permits were issued. Then I requested Mr. Allison to provide me with his copy of data, Stay Data, and I compared both copies and they were identical. There was no, I mean difference between two of them. And it shows that Mr. Allison he used Permit number STR-2110-HWCVHL, which was issued to another person, Mr. Jon Hyka for 149 Seaton Street, but he used that Permit number to book two-night stay May 27 to May 29 on Airbnb using that Permit number. And it was confirmed from both Stay Datas provided Airbnb and provided by Mr. Allison. So after that I concluded that he was in violation of Short-Term Rental Bylaw Number 1. Violation was Section 547-152(b), Renter no registration. He booked something without a registration number. And Number 2 violation was Section 547-4.3(b) in which he advertised his property with [sic] a permit number. (Ibid, at pages 62-63).

[27] Mr. Allison objected to this statement, and submitted it was made without "any proof of the statements he's making." I indicated to Mr. Allison that it was my belief he formed a conclusion from the documents, and advised Mr. Allison that while he had no obligation to testify, if he chose to do so, he could also make his statements under oath, and be subject to cross-examination. I further advised him that he had the right to cross-examine this witness about how he reached these conclusions. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 63).

[28] Officer Rashid also referred to Exhibit 3, the Affidavit of Adriano Imperatone, Senior Associate, Regulatory Response, Airbnb, and attached stay data (Exhibit 1 to this Affidavit), and the deposit of $618.93. Officer Rashid compared the Host I.D. that Mr. Allison used and said it was a similar Host I.D. which he used for his own permit and banking information, and everything was the same. He said that the $618.93 was transferred to his account. Officer Rashid spoke to Mr. Allison on October 6th by telephone, and on that same day, Mr. Allison sent him his copy of the Stay Data, and it was "identical to this one." (Ibid, at pages 64-66).

[29] During his cross-examination, Officer Rashid indicated that he worked as a Bylaw Enforcement Officer for the City of Toronto, and that he had been so employed for almost 9 years. During this time, he has worked in different teams, and joined Short-Term Rental in 2020. (Ibid, at page 69).

[30] Officer Rashid testified that since 2020, he has personally investigated dozens of cases. He left the Short-Term Rental team in 2024, and said he had been with that team for three years. He is now with a different department. (Ibid, at pages 70-73).

[31] He was unable to state how many of these cases were tried in court, and explained that it depends if they have strong enough evidence to charge a person. He added it was the discretion of the Bylaw Enforcement Officer, and varies case to case. (Ibid, at page 71).

[32] Officer Rashid testified that he received training when he moved into this team. He also receives training and information whenever there is a change in the Bylaw. (Ibid, at pages 71-72).

[33] Officer Rashid has not been notified of any specific issues with Sales Force or of the Stay Data that has been recorded. (Ibid, at page 72).

[34] Because he changed teams in 2024, Officer Rashid is unaware of an Auditor General report in 2024, entitled, "Short-Term Rental Program and Municipal Accommodation Tax: Strengthening Bylaw Enforcement and Enhancing Municipal Accommodation Tax Collection Processes." (Ibid, at page 73).

[35] Officer Rashid was asked if he has the defence's disclosure file, but he said that he did not, and that his file was his own file based on what he had prepared and submitted to the court. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 75).

[36] When asked about the registration discrepancy connected to 246 Ontario Street, Officer Rashid replied as follows:

There is two permits which are issued for 246. Both are used under your name. You provided me with Stay Data which was identical to the Stay Data by Airbnb. So both Stay Data shows that you used two permits for making bookings on Airbnb. One permit was issued under your name on June 1st, but you used another permit during May 27 and May 29, which was issued to another person, Jon Hyka for 149 Seaton Street. (Ibid, at page 78).

[37] Mr. Allison simply replied, "Okay." (Ibid.)

[38] Officer Rashid carried on and stated:

And we spoke on the phone and you mentioned to me on the phone that your friend at Airbnb provide for you, and I asked you why didn't you tell your friend to delete that file and I asked you how come somebody stay at your property without your permission and how come money transferred to your bank account? (Ibid.)

[39] Mr. Allison replied, "Okay, very well." (Ibid.)

[40] Officer Rashid added, "We had that conversation." (Ibid.)

[41] Officer Rashid denied there was any inconsistency in the Stay Data, and stated that the Stay Data provided by Airbnb and from Mr. Allison was "identical". (Ibid, at page 79).

[42] When asked in terms of Mr. Allison's name and the licence assigned to his profile, if this was inconsistent, Officer Rashid replied,

No. Two permits are used under your name. One was issued to you. One was issued to Jon Hyka for the property. Two permits were used under your name and Stay Data shows that both permits were used by you. (Ibid.)

[43] When asked how he was basing this off the data, Officer Rashid said he was basing it "off the data" and "plus our telephone conversation." (Ibid.)

[44] Officer Rashid described their phone conversation as follows:

I send you an email requesting that you to provide me Stay Data. You call me on the same day and you told me that somebody create that profile for you and I told you why didn't you delete that? And then I asked you, somebody stay at your house, how come somebody stay at your house without your permission and how come money transfer into a bank account without your permission and who provide your bank information and everything to someone who create that profile. So, everything you admitted that and your Stay Data same day you send me your Stay Data and that Stay Data shows that you used that permit and booked two days using that permit on Airbnb and the person stay at your property and send $618.93 transferred to your bank account. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at pages 80-81).

[45] Officer Rashid relied on the Stay Data to show that someone stayed at the property. When asked if he was aware that no one actually stayed there, he said he was not physically there and could not know this information, but relied on the Stay Data from Airbnb, and their verbal conversation. Mr. Allison objected to the notion that someone stayed at the property, and I invited him to testify about this later on during the trial. (Ibid, at page 81).

[46] Mr. Allison asked about the cancelled inspection. Officer Rashid cancelled the inspection of the property which was booked in the Fall of 2023, after their phone conversation. He said it would not be helpful to inspect it in the fall, since the stay happened on May 27, 2023. (Ibid, at pages 81-82).

[47] Mr. Allison asked if there was anything in either the Stay Data or the Sales Force information that would indicate the difference between a booking and a stay? Officer Rashid replied that the Stay Data shows the money being transferred to Mr. Allison's account and the column that says, "yes", means that the booking was confirmed and somebody stayed there. (Ibid, at page 84).

[48] Mr. Allison asked what happens if a booking is made through a platform and that booking is cancelled? Ms. Pulfer objected, stating that the Affidavit from Airbnb described how the Stay Data is created. I permitted this question, if the witness knows the answer, indicating that it is Airbnb data, but that he could respond if he has an answer. (Ibid, at page 85).

[49] Officer Rashid replied that if the answer is "no", then nobody stayed there. (Ibid.)

[50] Mr. Allison showed Officer Rashid an email from Airbnb, which stated "Reservation cancelled", which states that reservation HMHZPQNAFB for May 27 to 29, 2023 was cancelled by the guest, Rodrigo Heron, and that the payout will be released within 24 hours after the check-in date. It further stated that the full amount can be refunded to the user by clicking the button below. Although Ms. Pulfer submitted that this document was hearsay, she took the position that the City of Toronto was not contesting that the reservation was cancelled after the booking was made. This document was made Exhibit 7, but I advised Mr. Allison that it remains hearsay until it has been identified. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at pages 85-87).

[51] Officer Rashid interjected, and stated, "So to me, this is proof of my investigation was right that he, even if cancelled it shows that a reservation was made and he used somebody else permit number… to make a reservation. The question is not that it is cancelled or not but that he used that permit, so this one confirmed my investigation Sir." (Ibid, at page 88).

[52] When asked if it is possible that the booking could have been made in error, Officer Rashid said "no". When asked how he knew that, he responded, "the data it has all the information, permit number. It has a transaction number. It has permit holder's name. It has address, everything and you show that one here it confirmed that a booking was made." (Ibid.)

[53] When asked if there is a way to distinguish between an issue that is a result of piracy versus a booking error, Ms. Pulfer objected to the question, stating that Officer Rashid is not an expert in cyber security. Nevertheless, I allowed the question, indicating that while he is not an expert, I would hear his answer if he knows what it is. Officer Rashid responded as follows:

I mean if Stay Data shows a permit number which is not related to the name of the person then it is considered a pirated data. But I'm not an expert that if somebody can create (Indiscernible) data, but in this case Airbnb certified that this data is genuine, so I have nothing to say about that, anything about that. (Ibid, at page 90).

[54] When asked why there is no mention from Airbnb about the cancellation, Officer Rashid replied that he had never seen this document before but stated that Mr. Allison used someone else's permit to advertise on Airbnb, which he was not legally entitled to use, and it does not matter whether someone stayed there or not. Officer Rashid asserted that Mr. Allison used that permit to advertise and book someone, and even if the guest cancelled, he had violated the Short-Term Rental Bylaw. (Ibid, at page 91).

[55] Mr. Allison asked about the check-list in the disclosure package, and one of the items on it was screenshots of advertisements, and that this box had not been checked off. He asked if there are any screenshots of an advertisement. Officer Rashid said that this check-list was prepared by his Compliance Team, and not part of his investigation. Ms. Pulfer confirmed to me that there is no screenshot in the disclosure package. (Ibid.)

[56] Mr. Allison then asked if he was not aware of the property being advertised? Officer Rashid referred to a listing number. I was concerned about my understanding of his full answer on this issue, and so I asked my reporter to replay the audio recording of this testimony. After listening to it again, I concluded that the Compliance Team told Officer Rashid of a listing, but he did not actually see it and did not receive a screenshot of it. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at pages 92-93).

[57] Officer Rashid then confirmed that he was "aware of an advertisement because there is an Airbnb provided Stay Data which shows that there was a listing for this booking." (Ibid, at page 93).

[58] Officer Rashid testified that, "I didn't see the screenshot of advertisement but I am confirmed that there was an advertisement from the Stay Data." (Ibid, at page 94).

[59] When asked if he had confirmed the advertisement with the Stay Data, prior to bringing the charges, and whether he had made any effort to verify that there were screen shots or advertisement listings with the Compliance Team, he replied that he was investigating the case in October 2023. The listing was in May 2023, so the listing was taken off of Airbnb but there was a number, Listing Number which is still there and Airbnb confirmed that there was a listing for it. (Ibid, at page 95).

[60] Officer Rashid asserted that, "Nobody can make a booking without a listing, right?" He went on to assert that Mr. Allison said he had cancelled the booking, which is "proof that there was a listing." (Ibid, at pages 95-96).

[61] Officer Rashid agreed that he had inferred from the Stay Data that there had been an advertisement and that someone had stayed at the property. He relied on Airbnb's confirmation of this data. (Ibid, at page 96).

[62] Officer Rashid stated that the Sale Force software is a database where people apply for Short-Term Rental permits. They input their information and then, "we approve their application and every communication." (Ibid, at page 97).

[63] He agreed with Mr. Allison that this information goes through a portal, operated by the City of Toronto, and is automatically transcribed into the Sales Force system. He added that every month, Airbnb provides Stay Data to the City. However, Sales Force never has Stay Data. Officer Rashid said that Stay Data is different software. Stay Data is provided by Airbnb because they have booking data. (Ibid, at pages 97-98).

[64] When asked who entered or modified the Sales Force record for 246 Ontario Street, Officer Rashid replied it is only accessible to the Short-Term Rental administration team. (Ibid, at page 98).

[65] When asked if someone had issues with their license and called into Customer Service and spoke to MLS staff and their supervisor, would those notes be transcribed into the Sales Force system or would it be isolated to only the investigation, he responded that it depends on the nature of it, since the database is for the purpose of approving the application, and issuing a permit. Complaints are not entered into this database. If the City wants some documents, some clarification they send an email, and enter it in the Sales Force database. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 98).

[66] When asked if Mr. Allison had attempted to register with MLS, Officer Rashid responded that yes, Mr. Allison applied for registration on May 26th. The booking in question was from May 27 to 29, and Mr. Allison's permit was issued on June 1st. (Ibid, at pages 99-100).

[67] When asked about the timeline for MLS to receive a registration, Officer Rashid answered that Mr. Jordan had filed an application on May 26th, not a registration. (Ibid, at pages 100-102).

[68] Officer Rashid was shown a document addressed to Mr. Allison, "Short-Term Rental Application and Payment Confirmation" from the City of Toronto, dated May 26, 2023. Officer Rashid read out the first sentence, "Thank you for registering your home as a short-term rental property. Your request for a short-term rental registration is being processed." Officer Rashid continued to read, "Your application reference number is 5235676. We will review your application and…" at which point Mr. Allison said, "that's enough", but Officer Rashid continued anyway, stating, "…and if approved…" (Ibid, at pages 102-104).

[69] While this document is hearsay, I permitted it to be filed as Exhibit 8, but advised Mr. Allison again that he needs to identify it later himself. (Ibid, at page 104).

[70] Officer Rashid was asked if he was aware of third-party booking platforms that integrate listings from multiple sites? He replied there are many. (Ibid, at page 109).

[71] When asked if he was pretty certain that this was a pirated licence, he replied that, "yes, it shows in the data." (Ibid, at page 110).

[72] Officer Rashid was asked if he was aware that platforms can create duplicate or erroneous reservations with data when they are imported from one to another, he replied, "I don't know." (Ibid, at page 111).

[73] When asked if that could have been the situation here, Officer Rashid indicated that he relied on the Affidavit from Airbnb. He added that Mr. Allison had submitted the document that showed the booking was cancelled, which is proof it is not a mistake. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 111).

[74] Despite Ms. Pulfer's objection, I permitted Mr. Allison to ask Officer Rashid if a third-party platform initiated a booking on Airbnb, would it show up? Officer Rashid said he did not understand how someone could make a booking for someone else, using his bank account, his property address, his Host ID, nor did he understand the benefit to that person if the money is transferred to the person whose name and bank information is there. This person would have had to have stolen all of this information. (Ibid, at pages 111-114).

[75] Officer Rashid agreed with Mr. Allison that Airbnb was around "way before the program". He was then asked how he could be sure that the banking information provided in connection with the alleged offence was not already in the system on a profile long established by the platform? He replied that banking information is connected to a Short-Term Rental permit number. He said, "There was no permit number before. So that cannot be associated with the permit number…" (Ibid, at pages 114-115).

[76] When asked if it is possible that someone's pre-existing Airbnb profile which contained their name, address, driver's licence, bank account information, could be linked up with another licence? Officer Rashid said he could not answer this question, and that Airbnb would need to answer it. (Ibid, at page 115).

[77] Officer Rashid was asked if he was absolutely certain that this matter involves a pirated licence? He replied, "Data shows that so I, based on the data I am sure that it happened." He reiterated that, "the booking was made, that's why it was cancelled." (Ibid, at pages 115-116).

[78] When asked if he prepared the Affidavit from Airbnb, he replied he did not. He only became aware of it when it went to his team. It was the Legal team's responsibility to obtain it. (Ibid, at pages 116-117).

[79] In Re-Direct, Officer Rashid was asked what he meant by a pirated listing? He replied, when somebody uses somebody else's permit number and create a listing on Airbnb, that is what we call a pirated listing. (Ibid, at pages 117-118).

[80] Ms. Pulfer asked that he read out from Exhibit 8 the second paragraph, below "Application Information". He replied:

We will review your application and if approved you will receive your Operator Registration Number and Operator Guide. You must include this Operator Registration Number in your Short-Term Rental Listing." (Ibid, at page 118).

[81] She also asked him to read out the last paragraph, where it stated:

Remember you need a City of Toronto Registration Number to short-term rent your home in Toronto. (Transcript, October 16, 2025, at page 118).

[82] Ms. Pulfer also asked him to read out from the second page, under "Notes". Officer Rashid replied:

This is proof of payment of your registration application which is non-refundable. You may retain this receipt for your records and for income tax purposes. (Ibid, at page 118).

DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:

[83] Mr. Allison called Elliot Thompson to testify.

Mr. Elliot Thompson:

[84] Mr. Elliot Thompson testified that he has been employed with the Short-Term Rental team with MLS since August 22, 2022. He is a supervisor in this team. As such, he supervises a team of officers who are responsible for conducting investigations to ascertain compliance with Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 547 and any other related property standards matters that may arise or are identified by the officer during the course of their investigation. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 5).

[85] When asked if MLS offered any specific training on the interpretation of stay data or the use of Salesforce, he responded that he relies on his compliance team to assist with interpreting data. Officers consult with compliance as needed to review and analyze data. (Ibid, at page 6).

[86] When asked if he has encountered any recurring issues with respect to the reliability or accuracy of stay data since he began in 2022, he responded, "No". (Ibid, at page 6).

[87] Mr. Thompson was asked if he was aware of the Auditor General's report, "Short-Term Rental Program and Municipal Accommodation Tax: Strengthening By-law Enforcement and Enhancing Municipal Accommodation Tax Collection Processes", published on June 20, 2024? He replied that he was aware of it. (Ibid, at page 6).

[88] When asked to describe his role in this process, he responded that there were numerous consultations, many of which were with the public, and many of which were with City Council through their policy team. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 7).

[89] Mr. Allison sought to have this document made Exhibit 9. Ms. Pulfer objected since it was hearsay. Mr. Allison advised that he located it on the City of Toronto's website Short-Term Rental area, and it is a City document. I ruled that while it is a form of hearsay, given that it's written by the Auditor General, I ruled it fell under the hearsay exception for a business document. It is now Exhibit 9 to this trial. (Ibid, at pages 7-15).

[90] Mr. Allison read from page 2 of Exhibit 9, which states:

The 2024 amendments to the bylaw, adopted by City Council on April 17, 2024, aim to:

…strengthen compliance mechanisms and improve data collection, sharing, and verification requirements for licensed short-term rental companies. (Ibid, at page 16).

[91] Mr. Allison asked Mr. Thompson what changes to the bylaw happened in 2024 that addressed data collection, sharing and verification requirements that were cited as a concern or issue by the Auditor General? Mr. Thompson replied he could not recall at this time. (Ibid, at page 16).

[92] He further asked about the reference in the report to verification issues with the bylaw for operators and enforcement. In particular, he read from the top of page 5 of the report, which states:

The bylaw and MLS policy require operators to ensure listing information matches the details of their short-term rental registration. Transaction data from the licensed short-term rental companies for the period 2021 to 2023 reveal a 10 per cent non-compliance rate, with half of these involving unregistered operators using someone else's registration number. (Ibid, at page 17).

[93] He was asked to describe the steps taken to determine the cause of an issue when there is a complaint or something is flagged? Mr. Thompson said that when a service request is submitted by a member of the public, that matter is then assigned to an officer who will then investigate to ascertain compliance with Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 547 Short-Term Rentals. (Ibid, at page 20).

[94] Mr. Allison asked if a complaint was ever made by the public regarding 246 Ontario Street? Mr. Thompson responded that based on his recollection, it was a referral made by "our compliance team that operates through Business Licensing and Regulator Services". (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 20).

[95] He added that our compliance team is responsible for receiving the data from licensed short-term rental companies and then reviewing and analyzing the data, looking for any compliance or noncompliance trends, and then makes referrals to the enforcement unit for investigation and action by way of potentially revoking a registration, and possibly charges. (Ibid, at page 20).

[96] Mr. Thompson confirmed that he is the supervisor of enforcement and registration compliance of short-term rentals. (Ibid, at page 20).

[97] When asked what was the issue that came from the compliance team with respect to this address, Mr. Thompson testified that he recalled it was short-term rent without a registration. (Ibid, at page 21).

[98] Mr. Thompson testified that the next step was to assign it to an available officer for investigation. (Ibid, at page 21).

[99] When asked if the compliance team gave him screen shots of the advertisement of the listing, Mr. Thompson said that they did not personally give him anything. He added that it was a referral made through their case management system that he used with the City of Toronto known as IBMS, which stands for Integrated Business Management System. He presumed that all the attachments or details of the investigation would have been in the case management file, which would have been reviewed by the officer. (Ibid, at pages 21-22).

[100] He testified that Municipal Licensing and Standards uses IBMS as its case management system. (Ibid, at page 22).

[101] When asked how IBMS differs from Salesforce, and how the logging is handled, he testified that the logging of files is done through both systems. He confirmed that there are two systems. The officer copies their notes manually and enters them into Salesforce verbatim. (Ibid, at pages 23-24).

[102] When asked if he knew when a profile is frozen on a platform, he replied that this has nothing to do with the enforcement unit, and that they have no dealings with listings or any of those matters. (Ibid, at page 24).

[103] Mr. Thompson was asked if a licence is reactivated or deactivated would the IBMS program show who did what and when that happened? He responded that has nothing to do with a case investigation, and his answer was "No". (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 27).

[104] Mr. Thompson testified that he was unaware of third-party platforms that are used with Airbnb, such as Guestly, Hostaway and Wheelhouse. He replied that he had never heard of them. (Ibid, at pages 29-30).

[105] When asked when he was first notified of the matter at 246 Ontario Street, and what information he received from his compliance team, he replied that he did not recall. (Ibid, at page 30).

[106] Mr. Allison wanted to question Mr. Thompson about a chain of emails which addressed the denial of registration from September 13, 2023. However, Mr. Thompson was not a party to it, so I did not permit it to be filed since it was hearsay. (Ibid, at pages 41-43).

[107] When asked if he was aware of the City requesting a third party, such as Airbnb, to take down or suspend a licence on their platform, he replied, "I have no dealings with that process, so I cannot speak to that." (Ibid, at pages 44-45).

[108] Mr. Allison showed him an email chain dated September 15, 2023, which states:

Hi Jordan,

It was nice speaking to you today!

As discussed, your current listing for STR-2305-FXCRVR is now active and accepting STR bookings:

The link to the listing

Regards

-Elliot (Ibid, at page 45).

[109] When asked if he recognized this document, he stated, "It has my email address on it and that's what I would state for the record." He added, "I recognize that it might be an email that I sent." (Ibid.)

[110] Ms. Pulfer objected to it being made an exhibit, stating that it discussed the listing being active and deactivated in the months of September and October, 2023, which has no bearing on whether an offence occurred and might only be relevant to sentencing. Mr. Allison indicated that while the alleged offence occurred in May 2023, the charges were not brought until October or November, and that an entire process took place between the parties. Ms. Pulfer stated that post-offence compliance is not relevant to a determination of guilt. I ruled that while post-offence compliance is not relevant, what happened during the investigation period might be relevant, and permitted this email chain to be entered as Exhibit 10. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 46-47).

[111] Mr. Thompson was asked if he normally sends emails to operators to advise them that their listing is now active and accepting bookings or if there were exceptional circumstances in this case, he responded that it is something he would "normally do". He stated:

So if a client has notified us that they have some listing issues, we will do some investigating to find out what is the actual listing on the platform, anybody could do this. You could enter the registration number into a Google search engine, and if it populates a listing well there you have it. We know its active. And so this is something that I would normally do. What I remember about this case, you had been in a discussion with my manager, Wes Neal, who, who identified…we hadn't taken any enforcement action…at that time by way of a charge or a revocation of the registration. And so we decided to take a look to see if it was actually on the platform and low and behold it was. (Ibid, at page 48).

[112] Mr. Thompson looked to see if the listing was active, which it was, and he verified this to the operator. However, he could "not speak to" why this listing may have had an issue or not been active. (Ibid, at page 49).

[113] Mr. Thompson was asked if the City has any role in listings being taken down by Airbnb? He responded, "The enforcement unit sure doesn't. That's the unit I supervise." He added that his unit "does not have the authority or ability" to do that. (Ibid, at pages 49-50).

[114] When asked once a listing has been taken down, who has the authority to reinstate that listing? He responded, "The platform and compliance team." Mr. Thompson added that he cannot speak for Airbnb, and this is his presumption. From his recollection, it is their compliance team that has the ability to activate a listing. (Ibid, at page 51).

[115] Mr. Thompson was asked to confirm that the compliance team has the ability to reinstate a listing but they do not have the ability to take it down? He replied that he is from the enforcement unit, and recommended that he ask a compliance officer. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 51-52).

[116] When he was asked if he had ever personally reinstated a licence, he said that he "can't recall." (Ibid, at page 52).

[117] Mr. Thompson was asked if the ability to reinstate a licence is only with the compliance team, he replied that management staff within MLS have access to do so. (Ibid, at page 52).

[118] He was asked if he knew that the licence was reinstated on October 5, 2023, he replied that he did not know this. He explained that the email he had sent Mr. Allison indicating that his listing was now active was the result of discussions that Mr. Allison had had with his manager on the phone. He characterized this as a customer-service matter, which is why his manager had him look into it, which he did. (Ibid, at page 53).

[119] When asked if he had activated it on October 5, 2023, he could not recall. (Ibid).

[120] Mr. Thompson was asked what the procedure is when an operator can no longer host because they are moving, he responded that the client should ask the department what to do. If an operator is given a licence to operate and they find out they are moving, Mr. Thompson confirmed they are required to notify MLS. When asked if this policy is advertised to operators, he replied that it is enshrined in the bylaw, which is accessible to the public. He did not know the particular provision, however he stated that they must notify him because it's the licensing standard. He believes they must do so within 6 days of any information changing, by emailing the short-term rental mailbox, shorttermrentals@toronto.ca. (Ibid, at pages 53-55).

[121] When asked what is the expectation of MLS staff if an operator can no longer host, in accordance with the bylaw, he replied that this is on their own accord. They are more than welcome to do whatever they see fit. Mr. Thompson stated that they do not control who can host again, it's not a term in the bylaw. The operator is still required to submit their quarterly reports regardless of them accepting bookings or not to the Municipal Accommodation Tax Team. (Ibid, at pages 66-67).

[122] Mr. Thompson later testified that if the staff received such an email, they would review it and respond back accordingly. Mr. Thompson would coach his staff to ask the registered operator how they would like to proceed? They can either elect to do nothing, and they can elect to request to cancel their registration. (Ibid, at page 70).

[123] When asked what steps are taken if the operator requests cancellation, Mr. Thompson responded, "Barring no compliance issues, we could take the necessary steps to cancel the, the registration." He added, "If the enforcement unit is made aware or is privy to compliance, knowledge of compliance issues regarding the registration, the cancellation request would not be honoured." (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 70-71).

[124] Mr. Thompson was asked when an applicant notifies you that they are moving and changing their address, what actions do staff take, or do your staff take? He replied that action is taken to review the request in writing, verify if we have knowledge of any compliance issues or if there are any pending compliance issues. If that is the case, regardless of the operator moving, we are not honouring the cancellation because we must take enforcement action by way of the bylaw on the registration and the registered operator in question. He added that they do not update the address if there is a pending compliance issue. (Ibid, at pages 73-74).

[125] When asked if he had reviewed his file at some point between the time of the alleged offence and the charges that were brought, he replied that he did not recall. (Ibid, at page 75).

[126] Mr. Thompson was asked if he had any experience with stay data. He replied that he has seen it. (Ibid, at page 75).

[127] When asked if he was aware at the time of the alleged offence that the property was the defendant's principal residence, he replied he did not recall. He added that they have an enforcement team to conduct investigations if there is a concern. (Ibid, at page 76-77).

[128] When asked if he had any knowledge of the reservation itself, the stay, and if he had reviewed the stay data for 246 Ontario Street, he replied that he did not recall. (Ibid, at page 77).

[129] Mr. Thompson was asked if he was aware that this alleged booking was cancelled? He replied he did not recall and that he had no knowledge of that. Mr. Thompson then said, cancelled, what does that mean? (Ibid, at page 77).

[130] Mr. Allison rephrased the question in response. He asked him, are you aware that the booking itself was cancelled and that no guest actually stayed at the property? He replied that he had no knowledge of that. (Ibid, at pages 77-78).

[131] Mr. Allison asked if he had been part of the group of individuals responsible for determining whether or not to move forward with charges? Mr. Thompson said, no, he had absolutely no decision in that. That decision is made by the officer in charge, the investigating officer. The officer is a Provincial Offences officer and has the authority to lay a charge. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 78).

[132] Mr. Allison referred to page 22 of the Crown's disclosure package and Mr. Thompson's signature dated October 17, 2023, on the synopsis. Mr. Thompson stated that his role was to review it for grammar and the relevance to the program in terms of short-term rental. He stated that it was not his role to validate the officer's decision to lay a charge. He reviewed it for the soundness of the synopsis and the brief in accordance with what the Crown would be required in order to carry the case forward. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 78-80).

[133] When asked if the officer in charge just learned that there was no stay at the property, and that the reservation was cancelled, would that affect your review of the decision to proceed with the charges, he said it would not. He stated:

…if there was a record of a transaction, we work with facts and not hypotheticals in our world… If we have the evidence that's consistent with a transaction, a booking was made, we would proceed accordingly…if a guest were to cancel within the prescribed cancellation period…that has no dealings with the enforcement unit. And the question is, did it go down as a booking…However, what we do know is if money was exchanged, there was a transaction regardless of whether there was a physical body in the unit, it was a booking. Money …was collected for this, that was a stay. (Ibid, at pages 80-82).

[134] Mr. Thompson was asked if no money was collected would that change his answer. He responded that he has no dealings with that. It is required in the bylaw that the short-term rental platform remit transaction data that is truthful, the transaction that occurred. (Ibid, at page 82).

[135] Mr. Thompson was asked if there is a situation where an operator reached out to him over a booking that was made without consent or by accident for whatever reason but the host recognized this was an issue, what would you advise? What steps would you advise that individual to take? He replied that he would tell the host to contact the platform and tell them about the scenario. (Ibid, at page 83).

[136] When asked what he would suggest if an operator called him to say that maybe a reservation was made that may not be in compliance with the bylaw, what should I do? Mr. Thompson replied that this "hasn't happened. That's why it's so rare and I'm having a hard time answering the question." He added that if he is calling to report a noncompliance short-term rental in the City of Toronto to call formally through 3-1-1. He explained that the matter would be assigned to an officer on his team who would then follow up with the registered short-term rental or suspect illegal short-term rental and investigate to ascertain compliance with Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 547 Short-Term Rentals. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 84).

[137] Mr. Allison asked about an operator who reaches out to his team in good faith about a booking being made without their consent on their profile? Mr. Thompson challenged Mr. Allison about how an operator could become aware of a reservation being made without a listing? He kept asking how a booking was made if there was no listing? (Ibid, at page 85).

[138] When asked about his knowledge of technical issues with respect to bookings that have been made in the last couple of years, Mr. Thompson said that he had no dealings with bookings per se, and that he cannot recall. He suggested that Mr. Allison talk to the platform about these issues. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 86).

[139] Ms. Pulfer did not have any questions in cross-examination for Mr. Thompson, and he was excused. (Ibid, at page 87).

Mr. Jordan Allison:

[140] Mr. Jordan Allison decided to testify on his own behalf, after being advised that he was not required to do so. At the outset of his testimony, he stated that he is an architect and a planner. He serves as Chair of the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto, which interprets zoning bylaws. (Ibid, at page 101).

[141] Mr. Allison stated that he lived at 246 Ontario St, between 2021 and 2023 with his boyfriend at the time. It was their principal residence as their former home was under construction. They are now living back in their first home. (Ibid.)

[142] He testified that he and his family take compliance with the City very seriously. He serves as the president of his local residents' association. He deals with MLS and bylaw issues on a daily basis, so he understands the challenges that staff have in ensuring compliance, and the amount of effort involved. (Ibid.)

[143] Mr. Allison said that his family has had a valid short-term rental licence for three years, but they have never hosted on a single night. They want to have the option of doing so in the future. He stated that he is not a commercial operator. He added that he has one home in the City of Toronto. He does not rent other properties. Their licence is attached to their home, which they have had about 10 years. (Ibid.)

[144] Mr. Allison said that their neighbour and her husband have been renting out their house for a long time, that she is very active with Airbnb and short-term rental, and she was one of the catalysts to encourage them to partake. Mr. Allison and his husband decided to have a licence, too, since almost all of their neighbours rent out their homes. He finds it ironic that they are not renting out their home, but they have maintained a valid licence with the City for three years. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 102).

[145] Mr. Allison testified that he and his partner have been on Airbnb for about 11 years. He said that Airbnb has gone through a series of changes over the last 10 years. I allowed an objection from Ms. Pulfer that he cannot testify to changes to Airbnb's rules, policies or platform, since it is hearsay. (Ibid.)

[146] He and his partner had shared a profile for about 7 years, but they ceased to share it, since Airbnb changed their system to allow multiple hosts or guests. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 103).

[147] Mr. Allison testified that this case is about an alleged short-term stay in May, 2023. He understands that the City calls its data the business record, and stated, "I don't dispute the business record." To his understanding, a booking was made because on or about May 26th, he received a notification from Airbnb that a reservation had been made. (Ibid, at pages 103-104).

[148] On or about May 26th, at the same time, he registered his property with the City of Toronto, and he received confirmation that they had received his registration. He notified his husband, boyfriend at the time, that they had received it and provided him an update. He said, "In anticipation of our approval, we started to prepare our profile, which our understanding was once we record a licence from the city, we would be able to make that profile active and visible to the public." (Ibid, at page 104).

[149] After discussions with his neighbours, Mr. Allison determined that they needed more apps than just Airbnb. They signed up for some other short-term and long-term rental providers, including VRBO and booking.com. These apps are part of a third-party channel system, which connects to all of the platforms. I permitted this evidence to be entered as his understanding of this system, with his explicit recognition that he is not an expert in same. (Ibid, at pages 104-105).

[150] Mr. Allison addressed the issue of how can you not have an advertisement if you have a booking, by stating that the platforms allow listings. They do not require a licence to advertise a listing. He added that the licence is only required when a listing is advertising less than 28 days. (Ibid, at page 105).

[151] Ms. Pulfer objected, and stated that this is not evidence before the court. I asked Mr. Allison if he had anything to show me to establish that a licence is only required when it is advertised for less than 28 days? He responded that this is "public knowledge". He said it was information provided by the City of Toronto on their website. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 105).

[152] Since Mr. Allison did not have any evidence to establish his understanding, I accepted it but said it would go to its weight. (Ibid, at page 106).

[153] Mr. Allison testified regarding how this situation occurred, as follows:

Okay. So I – so on or about May 26th I received notification that there was a booking to my surprise. Immediately contacted my partner. He didn't understand why there was a booking. I contacted Airbnb. I explained to them that while I had registered with the City of Toronto, we were still waiting on our licence. So, Airbnb advised me to reach out to the guest. I reached out to the guest and fortunately were able to have that reservation cancelled. So that's why the guest never came, showed up, because I cancelled the reservation as soon as I saw it. (Transcript, October 17, 2025 at page 106).

[154] Mr. Allison explained that he had reached out to MLS staff at the same time. He stated that he had provided a copy of all of his mobile phone records to the court, and then he said it was in his disclosure package. Since he is self-represented, I explained that I did not know what disclosure package he gave to the City, and if he wanted to rely on it, he should submit it. Mr. Allison checked his records, and the phone records he had with him were for the period May 2 to June 2, 2023. Ms. Pulfer objected to this phone record, since this phone bill referred to calls made in April, 2023. I advised Mr. Allison that I would not accept this phone record as an exhibit, since it predated the events. To be fair, I asked him to see if he could access the phone bill for the correct period of time online? He stated that he was only able to access these records back to April 2024. I ruled that I was not going to hold up this trial to wait for his May 2023 phone bill, so that potential exhibit was not entered. (Ibid, at pages 106-115).

[155] Mr. Allison referred to Exhibit 7, which was an email he received from Airbnb, which confirmed that the reservation for May 27 to 29, 2023 was cancelled. He also referred to another document he received from Airbnb entitled, "A recent guest contacted us about their stay", in which it stated, "encouraged guest to cancel." I permitted this document to be entered as Exhibit 11, despite Ms. Pulfer's objection that they are both hearsay documents, ruling that they can be entered as business records from Airbnb. (Ibid, at pages 118-121).

[156] Mr. Allison testified that upon having the reservation cancelled, he spoke to MLS staff to notify them of the issue, and he was assured that nothing else was required at the time. He was told to wait for his licence to be issued. Ms. Pulfer objected, and I ruled that this evidence was hearsay and I could not give it any weight. I asked him if he had anything to document this statement? He replied that he did not have any specific emails and that is what the phone records would show. I replied that I had already made a ruling and that I was not prepared to hold up the proceedings for the phone records. Mr. Allison conceded that the phone records would not have disclosed the content of any conversations in any event. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 122).

[157] Mr. Allison testified that he received a licence from the City of Toronto on or about June 1st. The licence was issued and the City staff did not bring to his attention the booking that "I had cancelled back around the 26th." They operated with the short-term rental program through the months of July and August, and there were no issues until September 13th, when he received notification from Airbnb that the listing had been blocked. Mr. Allison identified an email (Exhibit 12) he received from Airbnb, dated October 2, 2023 which stated:

We had to disable short-term rentals for your Toronto listing

The City of Toronto has blocked your listing from hosting short-term rentals.

Update your city registration.

We've updated your minimum stay to 28 nights to comply with Toronto short-term rental regulations. If you'd like to go back to hosting short-term stays (fewer than 28 nights at a time), please update your city registration information.

Airbnb Ireland UC, 8 Hanover Quay, Dublin 2, Ireland (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 123-125).

[158] Mr. Allison testified that on September 13th, he received a notification directly from Airbnb that the listing, but not the licence, had been suspended by the City. (Ibid, at page 125).

[159] He and his partner were caught off guard. They did not understand what was going on and contacted City staff. They contacted Elliot Thompson, as well as driving to their address on Coxwell Avenue and spoke with someone in person. He said it took about a week and a half before staff kind of understood what was going on. He spoke to Mr. Thompson over the phone, who assisted him in re-activating their listing. Ms. Pulfer objected on the basis that this is hearsay. I ruled in her favour. I asked Mr. Allison to tell me what steps he took instead. (Ibid, at pages 125-126).

[160] Mr. Allison identified a document which he received from Airbnb dated September 15, 2023, from Airbnb, which advised him that he was approved to host short-term stays (Exhibit 13). It states as follows:

You're approved to host short-term stays

The City of Toronto has approved your registration or exemption claim for listing to host short-term stays.

You're approved to host short-term stays

The City of Toronto has approved your registration or exemption claim for listing to host short-term stays.

If your listing was deactivated, you'll need to reactivate your listing status. If you're currently hosting long-term stays and want to host short-term stays, you'll need to lower your minimum nights in your listing's availability settings.

Update your listing availability. (Transcript October 17, 2025, at pages 131-134).

[161] Mr. Allison highlighted that this document meant that the City of Toronto had approved registration. (Ibid, at page 134).

[162] He also relied on this document to support his earlier testimony that you do not need a licence to advertise a property as long as its not being advertised for less than 28 days in the City of Toronto. It is his belief that 28 days is the threshold used by the City of Toronto to distinguish between short-term and long-term stays. (Ibid, at pages 134-135).

[163] Mr. Allison testified that he spoke to Mr. Thompson on the phone on September 15, 2023, which was around the time that this registration came in by email. He recalled this vividly, since he had been in tears then because of all of this confusion. (Ibid, at page 136).

[164] Mr. Allison testified that the listing was taken down again on October 2, 2023 and then he said October 17, 2023. He referred to Exhibit 12 from Airbnb, "We had to disable short-term rentals for your Toronto listing…". When I pointed out that Exhibit 12 was dated October 2, 2023, he apologized and said he was reading a printout. He retracted his correction regarding the date of this email. (Ibid, at pages 136-137).

[165] Mr. Allison referred to Exhibit 10, page 1, which was an email he received from Mr. Thompson, dated September 15, 2023, which states:

Hi Jordan,

It was nice speaking to you today!

• As discussed, your current listing for STR-2305-FXCRVR is active and accepting STR bookings:… (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 138).

[166] Mr. Allison noted that Mr. Thompson's email also provided a link to the active listing (Exhibit 10). (Ibid, at page 140).

[167] Mr. Allison said that he received an email from Airbnb stating that the listing was active again, on September 16th, but then he received a notification that it had been taken down again on October 2nd. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 140).

[168] On October 2nd, Mr. Allison reached out to Mr. Thompson, Wes Neal and eventually to Mr. Zahid, the inspector. He explained the situation, and Mr. Thompson said they needed to set up an inspection, which they did. They set a date and time for same. He also asked him for the stay data he had received from Airbnb. He had already given it to MLS, and shared it again with Mr. Thompson. (Ibid, at page 141).

[169] Ms. Pulfer objected to Mr. Allison alleging that a resolution had been reached based on information he had shared, since Mr. Thompson has already testified, and that was not put to him, or if it was, he said that he did not recall. She stressed that Mr. Thompson did not testify that it was resolved on the basis of an error. (Ibid, at pages 141-142).

[170] Ms. Pulfer is not disagreeing that the licence was revoked or reinstated, she is disagreeing that Mr. Thompson indicated in his testimony that there was a basis for the reinstatement. I thanked her for her comments but made no ruling on this point. (Ibid, at page 143).

[171] Mr. Allison stated that the reinstatement of a licence is not something that can be done by an operator, or by Airbnb, it must come from the City of Toronto. (Ibid, at page 143).

[172] Ms. Pulfer objected again, submitting that if he is being reinstated on Airbnb, Mr. Allison cannot speak to who made that decision. She argued that this is contrary to what Mr. Thompson stated in his testimony, which is that Airbnb would be doing the reinstatement. (Ibid, at page 143).

[173] I indicated that I would be ordering transcripts and thanked the Crown for her comments. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 144).

[174] Mr. Allison testified it was his understanding that the only person who could reinstate a licence was either a person on the compliance team or one of the managers. He based this understanding on Mr. Thompson's testimony. (Ibid.)

[175] When the listing was taken down for a second time in October, he reached out to Mr. Thompson and Wes Neal to notify them of the issues again on October 2, 2023 (Exhibit 10, at page 3). He testified:

At no point was I under the impression that there was a compliance issue. I thought they had already been resolved. And that, that information was conveyed over to the officer. The officer requested stay data after the inspection…at the home. He asked me to send him stay data. I sent him the stay data. As soon as I sent the stay data, I got a notification that the inspection was cancelled, and I never heard from the officer again. (Ibid, at page 144).

[176] Mr. Allison said that the officer who never contacted him again was Zahid, Ms. Pulfer's first witness. (Ibid.)

[177] Mr. Allison said that he was notified that the inspection was booked for October 11, 2023 at 9:27 am, in a 2-page email from Zahid Rashid. (Ibid, at page 145).

[178] Mr. Allison testified that Mr. Rashid cancelled this inspection on October 11, 2023, which corresponded to an email he had sent, undated, following up on his email of October 10, 2023 (Exhibit 10, page 5). Mr. Allison read from an email he received from Mr. Rashid on October 11, 2023 at 9:27 am, which said, subject, "Canceled re Short-term Rental – Permit #STR-2305-FXCRVR – Property Inspection". He testified that in this email, Mr. Rashid had replied to an email Mr. Rashid had sent him earlier on October 6, 2023 to book the inspection, but in the subject line, he wrote, "canceled" (Exhibit 14). (Ibid, at pages 146-147).

[179] Mr. Allison testified that this was the extent of the notification that the inspection was "canceled". He never heard from Mr. Rashid again. (Ibid, at page 146).

[180] Mr. Allison stated:

So, just very briefly, in my short dealings with the officer before I sent him over the stay data, at no point did he lead me to believe that there would be criminal charges brought forth. In, in addition, at no point did I say to him that somebody stayed at the property. I think the evidence that I've provided shows the contrary. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 147).

[181] He testified that the inspector never visited the property, nor did he confirm with Mr. Allison whether their reservation was fulfilled or cancelled. Mr. Allison said he was not privy to any of that information before he brought the charges. He also did inquire as to whether the booking was made via system error. He was not aware that the reservation was cancelled until yesterday. The reservation was cancelled. I don't think he understood that the reservation was cancelled. He was under the impression somebody stayed at the property. (Ibid.)

[182] He highlighted the Auditor General report in which it was noted that 10 percent of the listings that had an issue with respect to somebody else's registration number being used. He views this as a high number, and questions whether they are booking errors or nefarious and the use of a pirated listing, which he described as follows:

I'm still frankly not fully aware of how the booking itself was made. I have…an idea of…how it might have been made, but I'm not a hundred percent sure myself. What I do know is as soon as I became aware of an issue, I acted very quickly to rectify the issue and self-correct a problem that – a potential problem that I had identified. I, I don't know what else I could do. I think I did everything right in this case. I don't think there's anything else that I could have done differently, and I – I certainly hope that nobody be put through the same experience should a reservation be made without their knowledge. There has to be some sort of exit of recourse for somebody to be able to bring this in line without – with avoiding this, this type of prosecution. So, I'll leave it there. (Ibid, at pages 148-149).

[183] Mr. Allison entered a 41-page document from the City of Toronto, entitled "Short-Term Rentals", in order to clarify what a short-term rental is, the 28-day rule, and other information that the City provides to the public. Ms. Pulfer objected to it on the basis of relevance, but I permitted it to be Entered as Exhibit 15, since he testified to it earlier. (Ibid, at pages 151-152).

Cross-Examination of Mr. Allison:

[184] Mr. Allison confirmed that between May 27 and 29, 2023, he resided at 246 Ontario Street. He also confirmed that he applied to the City of Toronto for a short-term rental licence on May 26, 2023, for this property. He stated in his application that it was his principal residence. He confirmed that he owned the property and that he would be renting out the entire property to guests. (Ibid, at page 153).

[185] He confirmed his earlier testimony that in anticipation of getting a licence, he began signing up for Airbnb and third-party rental sites. (Ibid.)

[186] He also confirmed that he did so before his licence was approved. (Transcript, October 17, 2025 at page 153.)

[187] When asked if a booking was made on Airbnb for his property one day after he applied for his licence, he replied that he believed it came in on the 28th. (Ibid.)

[188] When asked if the listing was for May 27, 2023, one day after he applied, he said, "Yes, the booking came through one day – shortly after we applied, yeah." (Ibid, at page 154).

[189] When asked if he did not know how that booking was made, he responded that he did not know "the technical side or how it was made." He knows it was made, but does not know how it was made because he never had a listing advertised on Airbnb. (Ibid, at page 154).

[190] Mr. Allison was asked if he had set it up in anticipation of receiving his licence? He replied that when he spoke of setting up our listing, that entailed "taking photos for the property, inputting information, getting registered on certain websites, like VRBO or, any other sites that we want to register with." However, he denied advertising it to the public. (Ibid.)

[191] He denied inputting any specific information into Airbnb. (Ibid.)

[192] Mr. Allison described getting ready as a "long and tedious process", and that there are many things to input. He maintained it should not have been visible to the public. (Ibid, at page 155).

[193] He did confirm that a booking was made for his property under his name between May 27 to May 29, 2023. He agreed that he became aware of that booking on May 26, 2023. Mr. Allison testified that he is a real estate representative and that he prepares "listings all the time to go on the MLS. He added that he uploads documents to that system but that does not mean that "it's active", in the real estate context. (Ibid, at pages 155-156).

[194] He agreed that he contacted MLS and Airbnb to let them know he had discovered the error. He understood that he could not rent out his property without a short-term licence. (Ibid, at page 156).

[195] Ms. Pulfer asked him if he had provided notice on July 29, 2025 to the clerk that he was formally filing a notice of motion under Rule 2.1 of the Criminal Rules of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act, and if he recalled this? He asked if she was referring to his section 11(b) motion? She responded that it was to formally file a notice of motion, is that correct? He agreed it was. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 157).

[196] She asked him if in that email he stated that he was relying on a Statement of Defence? He agreed that was correct. She read out from that Statement of Defence, at paragraph 10, as follows:

I relied on multiple representations by the City of Toronto and its staff, both written and verbal, which led me to believe, reasonably and in good faith, that I had successfully completed the act of registering prior to the dates in question. I received confirmation of registration by email from Municipal Licensing and Standards on May 26, 2023, and confirmed this status by phone the same day. In the context of a strict liability offence, this constitutes a reasonable mistake of fact that fully negates culpability. If the facts had been, as I reasonably believed them to be, mainly that registration was complete, then my conduct would not have contravened Section 1.2(b) of the bylaw. (Ibid, at pages 157-158).

[197] Ms. Pulfer presented this as a prior inconsistent statement, asserting that it directly contradicts the testimony he just gave the court. This was entered as Exhibit 16, over the objection of Mr. Allison, who stated that it was his section 11(b) motion that I had dismissed. I reviewed all the documents filed with the clerk of the court, and it was a separate document addressed to the Court, i.e., separate from the motion, it was not marked without prejudice or for use only at the judicial pretrial, so I entered it as an exhibit, and advised Mr. Allison he could address this topic during Re-Direct. (Ibid, at pages 158-161).

[198] When asked why he had not produced any evidence of messages he sent to Airbnb when he realized that there was an error in the booking system, he stated that he phoned them. He testified that he spoke to someone in customer service. (Ibid, at pages 162-163).

[199] When asked if he contacted the guest to encourage them to cancel, he agreed. When asked why he did not provide the court with a copy of that correspondence, he replied that there may be phone records coming to substantiate that, but the reservation was cancelled immediately after. (Ibid, at page 163).

[200] When he was asked about contacting MLS to report the unusual listing, he was asked why he did not have any evidence of that correspondence? He replied that he phoned MLS as well and that he had email correspondence with them. (Ibid.)

[201] Ms. Pulfer suggested that he did not cancel the reservation. He responded that he initiated it by speaking with Airbnb and with the guest. He said it was his understanding that Airbnb would go ahead and cancel the reservation. However, Ms. Pulfer referred to his earlier document that indicated his guest, Rodrigo Heron, had to cancel the reservation for May 27 to 29, 2023 (Exhibit 7). Mr. Allison described this as an automated email sent by Airbnb when a reservation is cancelled. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 163-164).

[202] Mr. Allison disputed whether or not the guest had cancelled the reservation, stating that this document was an automated email sent by Airbnb, and added, "It doesn't necessarily mean that he cancelled the reservation. It means that the reservation was cancelled." Ms. Pulfer noted that this document was entered by him, and that the court ruled it was a business record, and now, she submitted that he is contesting its validity. (Ibid, at page 165).

[203] Mr. Allison said that he contacted Airbnb, and they advised him to contact the guest to see if there is a mutual agreement to cancel the reservation. He suggested that Airbnb wants to ensure the guest is in agreement with the cancellation. (Ibid, at page 166).

[204] Mr. Allison again stressed that this was an automated business record, and added that, "I can't speak to why it says that Rodrigo had to cancel the reservation and not Jordan had to cancel or Airbnb had to cancel the reservation. I – frankly, I didn't think anything of it at the time. I was focussed on the fact that it was cancelled". (Ibid, at page 167).

[205] When asked if it is correct that he said that he has had a short-term rental licence for three years, he responded that it is not actually under his name, but yes, his family has had a short-term rental licence for that time. He explained that it must be under a specific individual's name. (Ibid.)

[206] He confirmed that to his knowledge, no one has ever stayed at his property. (Ibid.)

[207] He confirmed that he provided stay data to Officer Rashid, in response to his request. He also confirmed that Officer Rashid provided him with the 6-point instructions on how to download transactions for Airbnb. This email was marked as Exhibit 17. For the record, it is the same email as Exhibit 14, but it does not include the word "canceled" in it. (Ibid, at pages 167-168).

[208] Mr. Allison confirmed that the stay data he provided to Officer Rashid included the bookings beginning May 27th for two nights, with gross earnings of $618.93. (Ibid, at page 169).

[209] When Mr. Allison sent those documents to Officer Rashid by email, October 6, 2023, 3:21 pm, 2 pages long (Exhibit 18). It included the following message on page 1, which he read out on the record:

Hi Zahid

Please see the attached requested information. As per your request, I will have proof of principal residency documents on site for our inspection next week. With respect to the documents that were requested in the email, can you please confirm that the attached documents are sufficient to your request and that no other information is required at this time.

I look forward to meeting you next week. Have a good long weekend. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 170-171).

[210] Mr. Allison confirmed that in this email, he did not indicate that his account had been used without his consent, he did not mention that these listings were fraudulent in any way, nor did he mention that he did not know how that booking appeared. (Ibid, at page 170).

[211] Mr. Allison objected when she asked him if he did not mention a transaction that he did not recognize. He stated that he felt like he was being led, since his email clearly did not say any of those things. (Ibid.)

[212] Mr. Allison stated that while there had been some discussion about it, he agreed that he did not file a police report about his account being fraudulently used and without his consent. (Ibid, at page 171).

[213] He also testified that he did not report a fraud to Airbnb, but states:

No, I believe it was just a booking error. I don't think it was anything nefarious by anybody. So there was no – there was – and I didn't have anybody to go after. (Ibid.)

[214] When asked, but you didn't make the booking? He responded, "no, I didn't make the booking." (Ibid.)

[215] When asked if he did not provide in writing to anyone prior to being charged that there was a booking error on his account that he did not approve or make, he responded that there are hundreds of pages of emails in this matter, so he would have to look. He further stated that he had a phone conversation with Officer Rashid, which he confirmed in his testimony. He stated, "I do specifically remember a phone call with him." (Ibid, at pages 171-173).

[216] Ms. Pulfer referred to the email he received from the City of Toronto on May 26, 2023, with the subject, Under Review Short-Term Rental Application Reference ID 5235-676, which Ms. Pulfer described as one of his exhibits (Exhibit 8). She read it out as follows:

Thank you for registering your home as a short-term rental property. Your request for a short-term rental registration is being processed. Your application reference number is 5235676. We will review your application, and if approved you will receive your operator registration number and Good Operator Guide. You must include this operator registration number in your short-term rental listings. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 173-175).

[217] Mr. Allison agreed that this is what this document stated. (Ibid, at page 175).

[218] When asked if it is clear that you cannot rent out a property without a registration number, he replied, "The document states, 'You must include this operator registration number in our short-term rental listings.'" (Ibid.)

[219] Ms. Pulfer read out the last paragraph on the first page of Exhibit 8, which said:

Remember, you need a City of Toronto registration number to short-term rent your home in Toronto. (Ibid.)

[220] Ms. Pulfer asked him if he would agree that you need a City of Toronto registration number, for short-term renting of your home in Toronto, and that this letter makes this clear? Mr. Allison agreed that, "you require a registration number to rent your home in Toronto. It's not possible to do so without it." (Ibid.)

[221] Ms. Pulfer asked him if he agreed that he previously advised the court that he thought he was allowed to operate that justified his behaviour? Mr. Allison replied, "Absolutely not. I never said. And I thank you for asking that question because I never said that…" (Ibid.)

[222] Ms. Pulfer read out,

I relied on multiple representations by the City of Toronto and its staff, both written and verbal… (Ibid.)

[223] Mr. Allison objected, but Ms. Pulfer continued and read:

reasonably and in good faith that I had successfully completed the act of registering prior to the dates in, in question. I received confirmation of registration by email from Municipal Licensing and Standards on May 26, 2023, and confirmed this status by phone the same day. In the context of a strict liability offence, this constitutes a reasonable mistake of fact that fully negates culpability. If the facts had been, as I reasonably believed them to be, mainly that registration was complete, then my conduct would not have contravened Section 1.2(b) of the bylaw. (Transcript, October 17, 2025 at pages 175-176).

[224] Mr. Allison asked her to please clarify what document she is referring to, and she replied his Statement of Defence at paragraph 10. He confirmed that he wrote it, stating that his name was on the front. At that point, he wished to make comments on it, and I advised him that he could do so in Redirect and in his final submissions. He added that the paragraph she read began with "second, in the alternative…" Again, I advised him to address these issues during Redirect. (Ibid, at pages 176-177).

[225] Mr. Allison confirmed that he knew on May 26, 2023 that he was not approved to operate a short-term rental, and that he had not received a licence from the City of Toronto. He added that since he did not have a licence, he would not be approved to operate. (Ibid, at page 178).

[226] Ms. Pulfer stated, "And you obviously read this letter, so you knew that your application was under review on May 26, 2023." He responded, "Yeah, of course. That's why I cancelled the booking." (Ibid, at pages 178-179).

[227] He also confirmed that his permit was not approved until June 1, 2023. He added that is "why after that date we started hosting…the accommodations that we had offered over the month of July and August." (Ibid, at page 179).

Redirect:

[228] Ms. Allison noted that during his cross-examination, Ms. Pulfer brought up an email to Officer Rashid and asked if certain things were included in this email. He stated that this is not a fair argument to make, to choose one email and ask what it does not contain. He stated that the very limited time he had with Officer Rashid was via phone conversation. He also stated that Officer Rashid agreed that they had spoken on the phone during his testimony. (Ibid, at page 181).

[229] Mr. Allison also wished to readdress Ms. Pulfer's cross-examination regarding the guest having to cancel the reservation. He explained that this is an automated business record that is produced when a listing is cancelled. He noted a different exhibit which described how a recent guest contacted us about their stay. Mr. Allison referred to the feedback in that document about the stay, and it notes the dates as May 27 to 29, 2023, which was another automated business record produced by Airbnb. It described what to work on, and says that the guest was encouraged to cancel. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 181-182).

[230] Mr. Allison testified that there is a process with Airbnb for cancellations. If the host cancels on the guest, there are significant penalties. If there is an issue and there needs to be a cancellation, he said he would reach out to Airbnb, and then reach out to the guest. If the guest was in agreement, they would reach back out to Airbnb and say they have spoken with the host and we both agree to cancel the reservation. This explains why the guest, Rodrigo, had to cancel, and then in the other exhibit, what to work on, since it says that the guest was encouraged to cancel. He added:

So yes, from a technical standpoint either the guest or Airbnb that initiated the cancellation or actually made the cancellation, but in terms of making the request for the cancellation that that process happened, that was made by myself, the defendant. (Ibid, at page 183).

[231] Mr. Allison readdressed Exhibit 8, the short-term rental application and payment confirmation. He stated as follows:

…yes, I absolutely understood this document. My, my understanding was that I had completed the process of registering my home as a short-term rental property as indicated in the first sentence in the email, but I also understand that in addition to registering with MLS, I have to receive a licence from MLS and I have to wait for that licence to get approved. That's why the reservation was cancelled, and that's why you don't see any other reservations show up until after the licence was issued in June. (Ibid, at page 184).

[232] In terms of his document, Statement of Defence and Request for Withdrawal, Mr. Allison testified that it is unfortunate Ms. Pulfer began with the second paragraph which was in the alternative, because there is context that explains what he meant. He read out paragraph 8, in which he asserted that the alleged act of operating a short-term rental between May 27 to 29, did not occur. The only reservation was cancelled prior to check-in, and no guest attended or entered the premises at 246 Ontario Street during the alleged period. A cancelled booking unaccompanied by occupancy or use of a space does not constitute carrying on a business within the meaning of the bylaw. He asserted that the actus reus is not made out on the evidence. (Ibid, at pages 184-186).

[233] Mr. Allison then read out paragraph 10, which is the same paragraph Ms. Pulfer read out. The highlights of this paragraph are that if the Crown argues that the booking itself constituted operation, then the booking dates do not align with the alleged offence date. Additionally, Mr. Allison relied upon multiple representations by the City of Toronto and its staff, both written and verbal, which led him to believe, reasonably and in good faith, that he had successfully completed the act of registering prior to the dates in question. He concludes by stating:

I received confirmation of registration by email from MLS on May 26th - that's an exhibit – that constitutes the reasonable mistake of fact that fully negates culpability. (Transcript, October 17, 2025 at page 186).

[234] Mr. Allison stated that "we're talking about the act of registering. We're not talking about hosting, we're not talking about having a licence…" (Ibid.)

[235] Mr. Allison thinks that the act of registering was done by him. In his view, the second part of the bylaw talks about a licence, and so the bylaw makes a distinction between registering and having an actual licence. Mr. Allison said as follows:

At no point did I ever state or put forth that I felt that it was appropriate or acceptable to be hosting or providing short-term rental accommodation simply through providing my information to MLS. All I'm stating is that the information that is the offence itself does not necessarily reflect the way that the bylaw is written because it takes the word to register and it changes it to being registered, which is…a constant state. And I think…what the confusion is…what we're really referring to is a licence, the act of having a licence. In my respectful opinion, that was not the charge. The charge was not registering. (Ibid, at page 187).

[236] Mr. Allison went on to describe the thousands of pages of disclosure in this case. He added that he was "trying to put on my lawyer hat", to interpret the bylaw. Mr. Allison stated, "it's important that it's not misconstrued as if just because I received an email confirming that I had registered that one, I had believed that I was able to participate in short-term rental. I was aware that that was not allowed. And my actions in cancelling the reservation are reflective of that. So that's my, that's my submission." (Ibid, at pages 187-188).

[237] At the end of his Redirect, the parties agreed that they wished to make written submissions.

ISSUES:

[238] The following are the relevant issues in this matter:

(a) has the actus reus of each offence been proven beyond a reasonable doubt?

(b) if yes, has the defendant established a due diligence defence on either or both of the charges?

ANALYSIS:

[239] I have considered the credibility of each witness, as set out below.

Credibility of Officer Rashid:

[240] In assessing the credibility of the officer, I am relying on the Supreme Court of Canada's direction in R. v. Gagnon, 2006 SCC 17, at paragraph 20:

Assessing credibility is not a science. It is very difficult for a trial judge to articulate with precision the complex intermingling of impressions that emerge after watching and listening to witnesses and attempting to reconcile the various versions of events…

[241] In Faryna v. Chorny (1951), 1951 CanLII 252 (BCCA), at page 357, O'Halloran, J.A. speaking for the majority of the British Columbia Court of Appeal described the approach to assessing credibility as follows:

The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether the personal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth. The test must reasonably subject his story to an examination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of the truth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical and informed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. …[emphasis added]

[242] Officer Rashid's evidence was credible. He described in detail his investigation into this matter, and the evidence he gathered systematically. Officer Rashid compared the Stay Data provided by Airbnb (Exhibit 1) with that of Mr. Allison and found them to be identical. I accept that he checked his internal records to determine who owned the permit at the time and how many bookings were made during that period under another name.

[243] I also accept as true Officer Rashid's description of the Salesforce system which is a database used by the City of Toronto to record online applications.

[244] In particular, I accept as true his testimony outlined at paragraph 36 in detail, in which he described the registration discrepancy connected to 246 Ontario Street, Toronto as resulting from two permits being issued, both in the name of Mr. Allison. One permit was issued in Mr. Allison's name on June 1, 2023 and the other was used by him during May 27 to 29, but issued in the name of Jon Hyka.

[245] I accept that Officer Rashid relied on the Stay Data (Exhibit 3) to establish that there was a booking for the property for 2 days and had sent $618.93 to an account in the name of Mr. Allison.

[246] He did not embellish his evidence, nor was he shaken during his cross-examination. I have full confidence in his testimony as a result.

Credibility of Mr. Thompson:

[247] Mr. Thompson's evidence was generally credible when he answered questions directly, but at key times in his testimony, he was evasive.

[248] For example, during his questioning by Mr. Allison, there were several instances when Mr. Thompson stated that he could not recall events related to this matter.

[249] Similarly, when he was shown an email chain dated September 15, 2023 (Exhibit 10), in which he addressed Mr. Allison and advised him that his listing was now active and accepting STR bookings, and asked if he recognized it, he said, "It has my email address on it and that's what I would state for the record." He then added, "I recognize that it might be an email that I sent."

[250] Later in his testimony, when asked if he had ever personally reinstated a licence, he said, he "can't recall."

[251] I accept his description of how the regulatory process within the City of Toronto's MLS's Short-Term Rental team works as true.

Credibility of Mr. Allison:

[252] In assessing Mr. Allison's credibility, I am relying on the judgment of Mr. Justice Cory in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 742, where he held:

First, if you believe the evidence of the accused, obviously, you must acquit.

Second, if you do not believe the testimony of the accused but you are left in reasonable doubt by it, you must acquit.

Third, even if you are not left in doubt by the evidence of the accused, you must ask yourself whether, on the basis of the evidence which you do accept, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt by that evidence of the guilt of the accused.

[253] In R. v. Kruk, 2024 SCC 7, at paragraphs 59 to 62, Martin, J. provides excellent guidance, as follows:

[59] The overarching principle of the presumption of innocence, enshrined in s.11(d) of the Charter, and the correlative principle of the Crown's burden of proof, must always govern the fact-finding process. The presumption of innocence- a "hallowed principle lying at the very heart of criminal law" (R. v. Oakes, 1986 CanLII 46 (SCC), [1986] 1 SCR 103, at p. 119) – requires the Crown to bear the onus of proving all essential elements of the offence charged, beyond a reasonable doubt, before a conviction may be entered (Osolin). Closely related to the presumption of innocence is the accused's right to silence as enshrined in s.11(c) of the Charter, which safeguards human dignity and privacy against processes or reasoning that would compel an accused person to incriminate themselves with their own words (R. v. Noble, 1997 CanLII 388 (SCC), [1997] 1 SCR 874, at paras. 69-78).

[60] Various protections relating to the assessment and weighing of evidence flow from the presumption of innocence and the right to silence. Notably, an accused's silence at trial may not be treated as evidence of guilt, as such reasoning would violate both principles (Noble, at para. 72). Likewise, it is improper to discount the credibility of accused persons on the basis that, because they face criminal penalties, they will say anything to protect themselves. Though considering the possibility that the accused may have a motive to lie will not necessarily offend this rule, courts should be wary of going further and drawing the "impermissible assumption" that they will do so in all cases (R. v. Laboucan, 2010 SCC 12, [2010] 1 SCR 397, at para. 14). Such reasoning is premised on a supposition of guilt and therefore offends the presumption of innocence (para.12).

[61] The presumption of innocence also restricts how credibility is assessed in cases of conflicting testimony between defence and Crown witnesses. The analysis of testimony must never be treated as a contest of credibility, and triers of fact need not accept the defence's evidence or version of events in order to acquit (R. v. Van, 2009 SCC 22, [2009] 1 SCR 716, at para. 23; R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), [1991] 1 SCR 742, at p.757). The burden never shifts to the accused to establish their own innocence, and the onus always lies with the Crown to prove every essential element (R. v. J.H.S., 2008 SCC 30, [2008] 2 SCR 152, at para. 13).

[62] Reasonable doubt applies to credibility assessments such that if the evidence the Crown adduced does not rise to the level required of a criminal conviction, an accused cannot be found guilty simply because they are disbelieved (see W.(D.)). Some elements of the totality of the evidence may give rise to a reasonable doubt, even where much – or all – of the accused's evidence is disbelieved. Any aspect of the accepted evidence, or the absence of evidence, may ground a reasonable doubt. Moreover, where the trier of fact does not know whether to believe the accused's testimony, or does not know who to believe, the accused is entitled to an acquittal (J.H.S., at paras. 9-13; R. v. H. (C.W.) (1991) CanLII 3956 (BC CA), 1991 CanLII 3956 (BC CA), 68 C.C.C. (3d) 146 (B.C.C.A.); R. v. S. (W.D.), 1994 CanLII 76 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 521, at p. 533; R. v. Avetysan, 2000 SCC 56, [2000] 2 SCR 745, at para. 19). Finally, where the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence to establish guilt, the trier of fact may only convict if guilt is the only reasonable inference from the evidence (R. v. Villaroman, 2016 SCC 33, [2016] 1 SCR 1000, at para. 30).

[254] Since W.(D.) has been decided, the Ontario Court of Appeal has interpreted W.(D.) principles in several important decisions, R. v. J.J.R.D., 2006 CanLII 40088 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No. 4749 (C.A.), leave to appeal refused, [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 69 and R. v. C.L., 2020 ONCA 258, [2020] O.J. No. 1669.

[255] In R. v. A.I.B., 2024 ONCA 557, at paragraph 12, the Court of Appeal referred to paragraph 53 of J.J.R.D., and stated:

…that an explanation for a trial judge's outright rejection of an accused's evidence was not limited to a rejection "based on a problem identified with the way the accused testified or the substance of the accused's evidence"; a rejection could also be based "on a considered and reasoned acceptance beyond a reasonable doubt of the truth of conflicting, credible evidence." In C.L., this court accepted, at para. 30, that J.J.R.D. endorsed the proposition that a proper conviction could be arrived at even where exculpatory testimony had no obvious flaws if the Crown mounts a strong prosecution, but held that the "considered and reasoned acceptance" language of J.J.R.D. should not be included in a W.(D.) jury direction: see R. v. C.G., 2021 ONCA 809, 158 O.R. (3d) 721, at paras. 53-54.

However, in C.G. this court pointed out, at para. 54, that J.J.R.D. does not provide "an answer to the failure of a trial judge to advert to exculpatory evidence that stands unchallenged" and that "[t]he failure to advert to such evidence, and to address it, means that the acceptance of the complainant's evidence is neither considered nor reasoned."

[256] Similarly, in R. v. Ruthowsky, 2024 ONCA 432 at para. 72, Copeland, J.A. urged caution and restraint in departing from the core principles of W.(D.).

[257] I have considered Mr. Allison's evidence carefully.

[258] Mr. Allison's explanation of these events changed during the course of his testimony.

[259] When he began his testimony, as outlined in paragraph 153, he indicated that he was surprised to have received notification of a booking on or about May 26th. He indicated that he contacted his partner, and then Airbnb. He stated that he told Airbnb that while he had registered with the City of Toronto they were still awaiting their licence. Airbnb told him to reach out to the guest, which he did, and had the reservation cancelled. He added that the guest never came, because he had cancelled the reservation as soon as he saw it. He relied upon an email he received from Airbnb (Exhibit 7) to demonstrate the cancellation, and on a further email from Airbnb (Exhibit 11), which stated, "encouraged guest to cancel".

[260] When he was asked if he did not know how the booking was made, he responded that he "did not know the technical side or how it was made" and denied ever having a listing advertised on Airbnb. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at page 154.)

[261] Mr. Allison stated that the process of setting up the listing was long and tedious, and involved taking photographs and inputting information, but maintained it should not have been visible to the public.

[262] At one point, he compared it to preparing a listing on MLS as a real estate agent, and while he uploaded documents, it did not mean it was active.

[263] When confronted with paragraph 10 of his written Statement of Defence (Exhibit 16), which characterized him as having received multiple representations from the City of Toronto and its staff, both written and verbal, that led him to believe he had successfully completed his registration with MLS on May 26, 2023, and thus constituted a reasonable mistake of fact, Mr. Allison objected to its use at this trial.

[264] I agree with Ms. Pulfer that paragraph 10 of his Statement of Defence is a prior inconsistent statement, despite Mr. Allison's assertion that this statement was made in the alternative.

[265] I accept that Mr. Allison's testimony he encouraged the guest to cancel the reservation through Airbnb (Exhibit 7) as true.

[266] During cross-examination, when confronted with the letter dated May 26, 2023 from the City of Toronto (Exhibit 8), in which the City thanked him for registering his home as a short-term rental property, indicated that his application was being reviewed, and advising that he must have a City of Toronto registration number to short-term rent his home, he replied, "Yeah, of course. That's why I cancelled the booking." He further confirmed that his permit was not approved until June 1, 2023, and only began hosting after that date. This statement was a notable admission. (Transcript, October 17, 2025, at pages 178-179.)

[267] When Mr. Allison was examining Officer Rashid about his investigation, in an attempt to challenge the reliability of the information he was providing, Officer Rashid recounted a telephone conversation that they had, in which Officer Rashid claimed that Mr. Allison had a friend at Airbnb who provided him with a file, which should have been deleted. Rather than dispute this statement, or object to it, Mr. Allison replied, "Okay, very well." Mr. Allison's response was also an admission, albeit of less significance, since less was stated by him. (October 16, 2025 transcript at page 78.)

[268] The Supreme Court of Canada recently reviewed the admissions exception in R. v. Schneider, 2022 SCC 34 at paragraphs 52 to 57, as follows:

[52] The exception at issue in this case is a party admission. These include any "acts or words of a party offered as evidence against that party" (Paciocco, Paciocco and Stuesser, at p. 191 (emphasis added)). Although there has been a debate as to whether party admissions are hearsay, I agree with the prevailing view set out by Charron J.: "…admissions from an accused fall within a well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule" (R. v. Couture, 2007 SCC 28, [2007] 2 S.C.R. 517, at para. 75; see also Paciocco, Paciocco and Stuesser, at p.192).

[53] In criminal trials, a party admission will be evidence that the Crown adduces against an accused. An explained in Evans, the common law justifies allowing party admissions into evidence on the basis that a party cannot "complain of the unreliability of his or her own statements" (Evans, at p. 664). Unlike many other exceptions, justification for allowing party admissions does not relate to necessity or reliability (Vauclair and Desjardins, at p.911). This is one aspect in which party admissions do not conform to general rules.

[57] In this appeal, the party admission was something the accused said, that the witness overheard, and that the Crown tendered as evidence of the accused's guilt (Evans, at p. 664; Paciocco, Paciocco and Stuesser, at pp. 191-92). However, party admissions can constitute more than words; the common law has held party admissions to include, inter alia, silence, actions, and demeanour (see, e.g., R. v. Scott, 2013 MBCA 7, 288 Man. R. (2d) 188; see also Lederman, Fuerst and Stewart, at 6.470-6.512; Vauclair and Desjardins, at p.911). As noted by Professor I. Younger, a rule of thumb is that "[a]nything the other side said ever said or did will be admissible as long as it has something to do with the case" (An Irreverent Introduction to Hearsay (1977), at p. 24, cited in Paciocco, Paciocco and Stuesser, at pp.191-92). I do not seek to describe here the precise boundaries of party admissions, as that is not an issue.

[269] Given the vastly differing versions of events offered by Mr. Allison, I am relying on the third branch of R. v. W.(D.), and concluding that he lacks credibility.

The Legislation:

[270] The City of Toronto Act, 2006, S.O. 2006. C.11, Schedule "A", allows the City to have licensing powers over businesses carrying on business in the City.

[271] Section 7 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, states that the "City has the capacity, rights, powers and privileges of a natural person for the purpose of exercising its authority over this or any other Act."

[272] Section 8(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, conveys a broad authority to the City, to "provide any service or thing that the City considers necessary or desirable for the public."

[273] Section 8(2) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, allows the City to pass by-laws respecting a number of matters, including:

11. Business licensing. 2006, c.11, Sched. A, s.8(2); 2006, c. 32, Sched. B, s.3(1,2); 2017, c.10, Sched. 2, s.1; 2018, c.11, Sched.1, s.3.

[274] Section 85 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, defines "business", as follows:

"business" means any business wholly or partly carried on within the City even if the business is being carried on from a location outside the City and includes,

(a) Trades and occupations;

(b) Exhibitions, concerts, festivals and other organized public amusements held for profit or otherwise,

(c) The sale or hire of goods or services on an intermittent or one-time basis and the activities of a transient trader,

(d) The display of samples, patterns or specimens of goods for the purpose of sale or hire. 2006, c.11, Sched. A, s.85.

[275] Section 86 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, permits the City to licence businesses, as follows:

Powers re licences

86(1) Without limiting sections 7 and 8, those sections authorize the City to provide for a system of licences with respect to a business and,

(a) To prohibit the carrying on or engaging in the business without a licence;

(b) To refuse to grant a licence or to revolve or suspend a licence;

(c) To impose conditions as a requirement of obtaining, continuing to hold or renewing a licence;

(d) To impose special conditions on a business in a class that have not been imposed on all of the businesses in that class in order to obtain, continue to hold or renew a licence;

(e) To impose conditions, including special conditions, as a requirement of continuing to hold a licence at any time during the term of the licence; and

(f) To license, regulate or govern real and personal property used for the business and the persons carrying it on or engaging in it.

(g) Repealed: 2017, c.10, Sched.2, s.5(1). [emphasis added]

[276] The Toronto Municipal Code sets out in Chapter 547, the requirements for Licensing and Registration of Short-Term Rentals. The relevant definitions are set out below:

547-1.1. Definitions.

OPERATOR – Any person who operates a short-term rental.

PERSON – Includes an individual person, a partnership, or a corporation to which the context can apply.

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE – A dwelling unit owned or rented by an individual person, either alone or jointly with others, where the individual person is ordinarily resident.

RESERVATION – A commitment between a short-term rental operator and a person that a short-term rental will be available for the person's use for a specified period of time; a booking.

SHORT-TERM RENTAL – All or part of a dwelling unit used to provide sleeping accommodations for any rental period that is less than 28 consecutive days in exchange for payment, and includes bed and breakfasts but does not include hotels or motels.

[277] In order to be a short-term rental operator, a person must comply with the following:

547-1.2. Requirement for company licence and operator registration.

A. No person shall carry on the business of a short-term rental company unless they have obtained a licence to do so from Municipal Licensing and Standards.

B. No person shall carry on the business of a short-term rental operator unless they have registered as such with Municipal Licensing and Standards. [emphasis added]

[278] Mr. Allison has been charged with violating section 1.2(B).

[279] Anyone who wishes to advertise their short-term rental must comply with the following:

547-4.3. Issuance and posting of operator registration numbers.

A. All registrations under this chapter shall be issued a unique number.

B. Every person shall ensure that any advertisement of a short-term rental displayed by that person or within that person's control includes the corresponding operator's registration number issued under this chapter by Municipal Licensing and Standards. [emphasis added]

[280] Mr. Allison has also been charged with violating section 4.3(B).

Has the Actus Reus of Each of These Offences Been Proven Beyond a Reasonable Doubt?

[281] I will deal with the actus reus of each offence one at a time, as set out below.

Findings of Fact:

[282] In terms of the allegation that Mr. Allison carried on the business of a short-term rental operator between May 27 to 29, 2023 at 246 Ontario Street, Toronto, without being registered as such with Municipal Licensing and Standards, I make the following findings of fact:

(i) there is no dispute that 246 Ontario Street, Toronto is the principal residence of Mr. Allison and his spouse and that he owns same; nor is there any dispute that this was true from May 27 to 29, 2023. Mr. Allison confirmed that he resided at this address from May 27 to 29, 2023 during his cross-examination.

(ii) Mr. Allison applied to the City of Toronto on May 26, 2023 for a short-term rental licence through the City of Toronto's Salesforce database. In particular, Mr. Allison completed the Short-Term Rental Application and Payment Confirmation form with MLS, and received a reply from the City of Toronto stating that his registration request was "being processed" and required approval (see: Exhibits 5A and 5B).

(iii) Mr. Allison received his permit from the City of Toronto on June 1, 2023, bearing # STR-2305-FXCRVR, in his own name, bearing his own email address, for 246 Ontario Street, entitling him to book on Airbnb.

(iv) On May 26, 2023, a short-term rental booking was made at 246 Ontario Street, Toronto, for the period May 27 to 29, 2023, through the Airbnb platform. Mr. Allison confirmed that he had received notification from Airbnb that a reservation had been made. The stay data for this booking was identical between Airbnb's records and Mr. Allison's records.

(v) As a result, a deposit of $618.93 was deposited to Mr. Allison's bank account.

(vi) This reservation was cancelled by the guest, Mr. Rodrigo Heron, and the deposit was refunded. The guest never stayed at 246 Ontario Street, Toronto. See: Exhibit 7, an Airbnb document marked, "Reservation Cancelled". Airbnb generated a follow-up document (Exhibit 11), entitled, "A recent guest contacted us about their stay", which indicated that, "encouraged guest to cancel."

(vii) The Airbnb booking record for the May 27 to 29, 2023 stay at 246 Ontario Street, Toronto, provided an "operator ID" of STR-2110-HWCVHL. While it listed Jordan Allison and the address of 246 Ontario Street, a check on the Salesforce system by Officer Rashid found that this operator ID belonged to Jon Hyka. All the other critical data on this booking record belonged to Mr. Allison.

(viii) Mr. Allison received his registration from the City of Toronto to operate an Airbnb on June 1, 2023.

(ix) On September 15, 2023, Mr. Allison received an email from Mr. Thompson, in which he was advised that his current listing for STR-2305-FXCRVR was now active and accepting STR bookings, and this email contained a link to this listing (Exhibit 10).

(x) Mr. Allison received an email from Airbnb, dated September 15, 2023, which advised him that he was approved to host short-term stays (Exhibit 13).

(xi) He received an email from Airbnb dated October 2, 2023 (Exhibit 12) indicating that Airbnb had to disable his short-term rentals for his Toronto listing, and that the City of Toronto had blocked it. Airbnb advised him to "update your city registration."

(xii) Mr. Allison reached out again to Mr. Thompson and Mr. Neal in an email dated October 2, 2023, indicating his belief that the issue had been resolved, and that "at no point was I under the impression that there was a compliance issue." (Exhibit 10, page 3).

(xiii) The inspection booked by Officer Rahid for October 11, 2023 (Exhibit 14), was cancelled by Officer Rashid on October 10, 2023 (Exhibit 10, page 5).

(xiv) Mr. Allison did not report a fraud to Airbnb or to the police, and testified he did not do so because he thought it was a "booking error".

(xv) However, in Mr. Allison's Statement of Defence (Exhibit 16), filed at the outset of this court proceeding, in paragraph 10, he stated that in the alternative:

I relied on multiple representations by the City of Toronto staff, both written and verbal, which led me to believe, reasonably and in good faith, that I had successfully completed the act of registering prior to the dates in question. I received confirmation of registration by email from Municipal Licensing and Standards on May 26, 2023, and confirmed this status by phone the same day. In the context of a strict liability offence, this constitutes a reasonable mistake of fact that fully negates culpability. If the facts had been, as I reasonably believed them to be, mainly that registration was complete, then my conduct would not have contravened Section 1.2(b) of the bylaw.

(xvi) The email Mr. Allison received from the City of Toronto, dated May 26, 2023, with the subject, Under Review Short-Term Rental Application Reference ID 5235676 (Exhibit 8), states clearly:

Thank you for registering your home as a short-term rental property. Your request for a short-term rental registration is being processed. Your application reference number is 5235676. We will review your application, and if approved you will receive your operator registration number and Good Operator Guide. You must include this operator registration number in your short-term rental listings…

Remember, you need a City of Toronto registration number to short-term rent your home in Toronto.

(xvii) Mr. Allison conceded during his cross-examination that he knew on May 26, 2023 that he was not approved to operate a short-term rental, and that he had not received a licence from the City of Toronto, which meant that he would not be approved to operate.

(xviii) With this knowledge, Mr. Allison cancelled the booking, by reaching out to the guest and encouraging him to cancel.

Findings of Law:

[283] What does it mean to "carry on business as a short-term rental operator"?

[284] Section 85(c) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, includes, "the sale or hire of goods or services on an intermittent or one-time basis and the activities of a transient trader" as part of its definition of a "business".

[285] Section 86(1) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, delegates the power to govern licensing to the City of Toronto, which it regulates through the Toronto Municipal Code. Subsection 86(1)(a) of this Act authorizes the City to "prohibit the carrying on or engaging in the business without a licence".

[286] In Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc, 2021 SCC 51, [2021] 3 SCR 687, the Supreme Court of Canada had to interpret foreign accrual property income under the Income Tax Act, and the financial institution exception. Madame Justice Cote held for a unanimous Court in paragraph 45 that "business" is defined under the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.1 (5th Supp.) in section 248 as including "a profession, calling, trade, manufacture or undertaking of any kind whatever," but that its meaning "is broad and not restricted to income-generating activities".

[287] The Supreme Court went on to find in paragraph 45 of Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc:

…However, we are not concerned with the word "business" alone. In my view, an ordinary and grammatical reading of the words "business conducted" conveys a different meaning that the word "business" alone. The addition of the verb "conducted" emphasizes Parliament's intent to focus on the active carrying out of the business rather than on the establishment of prerequisite conditions that enable a foreign affiliate to conduct business. [emphasis added]

[288] Thus, it held at paragraph 46 that while raising capital is a necessary part of any business, there is a distinction between capitalization and the conduct of a business. In doing so, the Court cited Montreal Coke and Manufacturing Co. v. Minister of National Revenue, 1944 CanLII 385 (UK JCPC), [1944] A.C. 126 (P.C.), in which Lord Macmillan similarly stated at page 134, "Of course, like other business people, they must have capital to enable them to conduct their enterprises, but their financial arrangements are quite distinct from the activities by which they earn their income."

[289] In H.M.B. Holdings Ltd. v. Antigua and Barbuda, 2021 SCC 44, [2021] 3 SCR 285, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the issue of "carrying on business" within the meaning of section 3(b) of Ontario's Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act ("REJA").

[290] At paragraph 30, it held that the REJA did not define "carrying on business" for the purpose of section 3(b), but it held that this concept has a long history at common law. The Supreme Court of Canada added, in paragraph 30, that as "a matter of statutory interpretation, common law terms and concepts are presumed to retain their common law meaning when used in legislation", citing R. Sullivan, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (6th ed. 2014) at 17.14.

[291] The traditional common law definition of "business", used in tax matters, provides that "'business' designates the activities that 'occup[y] the time and attention and labour of a man for the purpose of profit'", see: Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc, at paragraph 24, quoting Smith v. Anderson (1880), 15 Ch.D. 247 (C.A.), at p. 258.

[292] Thus, in Canada v. Loblaw Financial Holdings Inc, at para. 258, the Supreme Court concluded that, "It followed that only Glenhuron's income-earning activities had to be considered." [emphasis added]

[293] Mr. Allison was actively carrying on a business as a short-term rental operator when these events occurred. He compared setting up this account to setting up an MLS listing as a real estate agent, which I find also requires a personal licence. Mr. Allison spent his time, attention and labour in activities to establish his principal residence as a short-term rental for the purpose of profit, e.g. income earning activities. He had filed his application with Airbnb and other platforms, taken photographs, and was in the process of obtaining his registration from the City. The transaction went through before the City had provided him with his own registration number.

[294] The booking could not have been completed through Airbnb but for the insertion of the registration number of Jon Hyka, as established by the verified Stay Data from Airbnb. Officer Rashid inspected the Airbnb Stay Data and that of Mr. Allison, and found them to be identical.

[295] Chapter 547 of the Toronto Municipal Code governs the requirements for Licensing and Short-Term Rentals. Section 547-1.1 provides for a number of key definitions, including that of "reservation". It describes it as a "commitment between a short-term rental operator and a person that a short-term rental will be available for the person's use for a specified period of time; a booking." [emphasis added]

[296] This definition on its face presupposes that Mr. Allison would be a duly licenced short-term rental "operator" prior to transacting in this regulated industry. This definition is in harmony with the requirement set out in Section 547-1.2B, that, "No person shall carry on the business of a short-term rental operator unless they have registered as such with Municipal Licensing and Standards." It is also in harmony with section 86(1)(a) of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, which authorizes the City to provide for a system of licensing with respect to businesses "to prohibit the carrying on or engaging in the business without a licence."

[297] In Lundin Mining Corp. v. Markowich, 2025 SCC 39 at paragraph 46, Jamal, J. for the majority described the modern principle of statutory interpretation, as follows:

A statutory provision is interpreted based on its text, context, and purpose to find a meaning that is harmonious with the legislation as a whole (Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at para.21; Canada Trustco Mortgage Co. v. Canada, 2005 SCC 54, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 601, at para. 10; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653, at para. 117).

[298] I find that a plain reading of the definition of "reservation" in conjunction with the requirement to be licensed as a short-term rental operator prior to carrying on business is the correct interpretation of the legislation. Moreover, Mr. Allison's reliance on the word "used" in the context of the definition of a short-term rental, e.g. requiring a stay, is an unduly narrow interpretation of the legislation. I find that entering a "reservation" is also a form of use of this property in the context of operating a short-term rental business. This is particularly true, because a "reservation" automatically becomes a booking with a deposit made to the operator's bank account through Airbnb's platform. The cancellation of some reservations is a normal part of doing business and does not fall outside of the scope of this legislation, in the same way that other industries permit the rescission of contracts for full returns, e.g. returning consumer goods to a store, for example.

[299] I am satisfied that the actus reus of the first count has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Due Diligence Defence:

[300] In the seminal case of R. v. Sault Ste. Marie (City), 1978 CanLII 11 (SCC), [1978] 2 SCR 1299 at page 1325-1326, Dickson, J. described the three categories of offences as follows:

1. Offences in which mens rea, consisting of some positive state of mind such as intent, knowledge, or recklessness, must be proved by the prosecution either as an inference from the nature of the act committed, or by additional evidence.

2. Offences in which there is no necessity for the prosecution to prove the existence of mens rea; the doing of the prohibited act prima facie imports the offence, leaving it open to the accused to avoid liability by proving that he took all reasonable care. This involves consideration of what a reasonable man would have done in the circumstances. The defence will be available if the accused reasonably believed in a mistaken set of facts which, if true, would render the act or omission innocent, or if he took all reasonable steps to avoid the particular event. These offences may properly be called offences of strict liability….

3. Offences of absolute liability where it is not open to the accused to exculpate himself by showing that he was free of fault. [emphasis added]

[301] Thus, there are two alternative branches to the due diligence defence: reasonable mistake of fact, or the taking of all reasonable steps to avoid the event. See: R. v. MacMillan Blodel Ltd., 2002 BCCA 510, at paragraph 47.

Reasonable Mistake of Fact:

[302] Mr. Justice Dickson in Sault Ste. Marie addressed the reasonable mistake of fact defence within the due diligence defence at pages 1314-1315, as follows:

The reason is that the offences in question have generally turned on the possession by a person or a place of an unlawful status, and the accused's defence was that he reasonably did not know of this status: e.g. permitting an unlicensed person to drive, or lacking a valid licence oneself, or being the owner of property in a dangerous condition. In such cases, negligence consists of an unreasonable failure to know the facts which constitute the offence. It is clear, however, that in principle the defence is that all reasonable care was taken. In other circumstances, the issue will be whether the accused's behaviour was negligent in bringing about the forbidden even when he knew the relevant facts. Once the defence of reasonable mistake of fact is accepted, there is no barrier to acceptance of the other constituent part of a defence of due diligence.

[303] Based on Mr. Allison's testimony during cross-examination, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that he did not make a reasonable mistake of fact, in that he knew that the City of Toronto was considering his application based on its letter to him dated May 26, 2023, and he knew that he did not have his own registration number until that application had been approved.

[304] Mr. Allison further admitted during his cross-examination that he knew he could not operate yet without his registration number from the City of Toronto, which is why he had the booking cancelled.

[305] This admission is evidence against Mr. Allison for all purposes. It is relevant and should be considered with all of the other evidence to determine whether the Crown has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt and is also relevant where the defendant bears the onus, such as establishing a due diligence defence. See: R. v. Synacrude Canada Ltd., 2010 ABPC 299 at paragraphs 81 to 82.

Did Mr. Allison Take All Reasonable Steps to Avoid the Event?

[306] To meet this test, Mr. Allison is not required to show that he took all possible or imaginable steps to avoid liability. He is not required to meet a standard of perfection. His conduct must be assessed against that of a reasonable person in similar circumstances, see: R. v. Syncrude Canada Ltd., 2010 ABPC 229 at paragraph 99 and Levis (City) v. Tetreault (City), 2006 SCC 12, [2006] 1 SCR 420 at paragraph 15.

[307] As Justice Libman noted in his looseleaf, Libman on Regulatory Offences in Canada, Earlscourt Legal Press Inc, at 7-25, the determination of whether a due diligence defence exists requires a weighing and balancing of a number of factors, as set out in R. v. Commander Business Furniture Inc., (1992) 9 CELR (NS) 185 at 212 (ON PD), which were cited with approval by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 1995 CanLII 112 (SCC), [1995] 2 SCR 1031 at paragraph 68, as follows:

(1) the nature and gravity of the adverse effect;

(2) the foreseeability of the effect, including abnormal sensitivities;

(3) the alternative solutions available;

(4) legislative or regulatory compliance;

(5) industry standards;

(6) the character of the neighbourhood;

(7) what efforts have been made to address the problem;

(8) over what period of time, and promptness of response;

(9) matters beyond the control of the accused, including technological limitations;

(10) skill level expected of the accused;

(11) the complexities involved;

(12) preventive systems;

(13) economic considerations; and

(14) actions of officials.

[308] I will analyze each of these factors below:

(1) In terms of the nature and gravity of the adverse effect, his intentional use of someone else's registration number resulted in a transaction occurring which violated the Toronto Municipal Code;

(2) This outcome was highly foreseeable, since the inclusion of the registration number was a critical piece of information. Mr. Allison was on notice of same, because when he applied to the City on May 26, 2023 to operate a short-term rental from his home, he received an application reference number and advice within their correspondence that he needed to be approved and to receive a registration number prior to commencing such activities (Exhibit 8). As noted in paragraph 49 of MacMillan Blodel:

Foreseeability of a risk of harm is central to the concept of negligence…In the context of the defence of due diligence in relation to strict liability offences, the harm is not injury to a neighbour, but the contravention of the relevant statute.

The focus of the due diligence test is his conduct in relation to this event, and not one of a more general standard of care. Thus Mr. Allison's general adherence to compliance objectives as articulated by him does not meet this test.

I am relying on the test of foreseeability as set out by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Rio Algom, 1988 CanLII 4702 (ONCA), 66 OR (2d), 674 at paragraph 25 to find that he was negligent:

The test which should have been applied was not whether a reasonable man in the circumstances would have foreseen the accident happening in the way it did happen but rather whether a reasonable man in the circumstances would have foreseen that an "overswing" of the gate could be dangerous in the circumstances and if so whether the respondent in this case had proven it was not negligent in failing to check the extent of overswing in order to consider and determine whether it created in any way a potential source of danger to employees and in failing to take corrective action to remove the source of danger.

(3) The alternative solution available was to wait for his own registration number to be issued. It was issued to him on June 1, 2023;

(4) This incident violated the licensing provisions of the Toronto Municipal Code;

(5) Short-term rentals in Toronto are subject to both municipal bylaws and the contractual terms associated with platforms such as Airbnb. To establish industry standards beyond those minimum requirements I would have had to have heard from a witness from this industry, which did not occur at this trial. See: R. v. Bui, [2005] O.J. No. 1546;

(6) This factor is irrelevant to this case;

(7) Mr. Allison made a number of efforts to address this problem. He quickly contacted Airbnb, and reached out to the prospective guest, and persuaded him to cancel his stay, see: Exhibit 7. Thus, I accept that the reservation was cancelled and the payment was refunded. I further accept he did not receive any income as a result;

(8) Mr. Allison testified that he reached out to Airbnb and to the guest immediately, which generated a prompt response from Airbnb. He also stopped any efforts to transact through Airbnb until he received his own registration number;

(9) Once the account was set up including Mr. Hyka's registration number, it was beyond the control of Mr. Allison to stop a booking from taking place;

(10) The skill level expected includes a requirement from the City of Toronto not to engage in any short-term home rental activity until it has issued a personal registration number to Short-Term Rental participants. See: Exhibit 8;

(11) This is not a complex requirement. Given that Mr. Allison is a real estate agent himself, he would be familiar with the requirement to have a personal licensing number prior to transacting;

(12) There is no preventative system or "override" in the Airbnb platform to reject a matter that contains a registration number that does not match the identity of the host, which in my view, is a design flaw;

(13) The economic considerations include the concern expressed by the City of Toronto about individuals transacting who are yet to be licensed, and the potential detriment to Mr. Allison in terms of his viability as a short-term rental operator if he were to be convicted;

(14) In terms of the actions of officials, Officer Rashid began investigating the matter in October, 2023, and so Mr. Allison was aware that the City was comparing his Share Data to that of Airbnb. Mr. Allison heard from Airbnb on September 13, 2023 that the listing but not the licence had been suspended by the City. Mr. Thompson advised him in an email that his account had been activated on September 15, 2023 (Exhibit 10).

Once Mr. Allison knew that his ability to transact in this system had been disabled by Airbnb on October 2, 2023 (Exhibit 12), he reached out to several officials for assistance again, and a series of emails were exchanged.

[309] After giving these factors much thought, I have concluded that Mr. Allison's extensive efforts were post-offence conduct, which are relevant to sentencing only. He did not take reasonable steps at the time to prevent the incident, nor do I accept his version of events that he does not know how this occurred or that it was the result of system error, given the inconsistencies in his evidence.

[310] Thus, I find that Mr. Allison is guilty of count #1, carrying out the business of being a short-term rental operator without being registered, contrary to Section 1.2B of the Toronto Municipal Code.

Count #2: Did Mr. Allison Commit the Offence of Being a Short-Term Rental Operator and failed to ensure all advertisement for same include his Operator's Registration Number?

[311] The Toronto Municipal Code does not define "advertisement". The Canadian Oxford Dictionary, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, Don Mills, Ontario: 2004, offers the following definition at page 19:

Advertisement noun 1 a public notice or announcement, esp. one advertising goods or services in newspapers etc., on posters, or in broadcasts. 2 a person or thing regarded as a means of recommending something (unhappy clients are not a good advertisement for the company).

[312] I am relying on the first definition offered, that an advertisement is a public notice or announcement. As such, it is a tangible thing that could have been entered into evidence at this trial.

[313] Officer Rashid was very clear in his testimony that he never saw an advertisement in relation to this matter. Officer Rashid only referred to a listing number. The Compliance Team at the City of Toronto only advised him of a listing, but he did not actually see it and he did not receive a screenshot of it.

[314] Officer Rashid investigated this matter in October, 2023, and he did not find anything on the Airbnb site to prove there was an advertisement. He was of the belief that it would have been taken down by then, since the matter took place in May, 2023. However, this is speculation.

[315] When asked if the compliance team had ever given him screen shots of this matter, Mr. Thompson said that they did not provide him personally with anything. Thus, he never saw an advertisement either.

[316] The City of Toronto is unable to prove the actus reus of this offence, and can only offer speculation as to the historical existence of an advertisement.

[317] Thus, count #2 is dismissed.

Released: April 8, 2026

Signed: Justice of the Peace Mary A. Ross Hendriks