Administrative Law - ONCJ

The Ontario Court of Justice found 10695025 Canada Ltd. guilty of 15 counts of Fire Code violations occurring on October 4, 2023, at a leased industrial property in Mississauga where cannabis was cultivated.

The defendant corporation did not appear at trial, which proceeded in absentia under s. 54(1) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court accepted the testimony of a fire inspector and photographic evidence detailing multiple violations including lack of smoke and carbon monoxide alarms, obstructed exits, improper fire separations, and inadequate fire extinguisher maintenance.

The court also addressed the issue of corporate liability post-dissolution, interpreting s. 226(2) of the Canada Business Corporations Act to hold a dissolved corporation liable for offences committed up to two years after dissolution if it continued business activities.

The 16th count was dismissed due to insufficient evidence regarding NFPA 25 compliance.

This decision addresses the City of Brampton's application under s. 51 of the Provincial Offences Act to compel personal attendance of defendants represented by certain paralegals and firms accused of filing frivolous and meritless appeals to delay convictions from appearing on driving records.

The court initially ordered personal appearances to conduct proper plea inquiries but reconsidered this order, allowing statutory declarations under s. 43 of the Evidence Act in lieu of personal attendance.

The ruling extensively discusses the abuse of process and obstruction of justice doctrines, referencing prior cases including Toronto (City) v. Becerra, and highlights the ethical obligations of paralegals under the Law Society of Ontario's Rules of Conduct.

The decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and preventing misuse of appeals to "game the system."

The Ontario Court of Justice considered three pre-trial motions in a Provincial Offences Act prosecution involving alleged violations of the Building Code Act.

The court granted the prosecution's request to amend the offence dates on the information to a date within the statutory limitation period, rejecting a broader date range that was statute barred.

The court refused to quash the information despite technical irregularities in the jurat signature, holding that substance prevails over form and that the information was properly laid under s.23(1.2) POA.

The court also ruled that the doctrine of discoverability applies to the limitation period under s.36(8) BCA, making the continuing offence argument irrelevant for limitation purposes.

The court granted leave to reapply on amendment and limitation issues based on trial evidence and remains seized of the matter.

The Ontario Court of Justice held a Part III trial under the Provincial Offences Act in absentia for Noel-George Carr regarding three informations under the Building Code Act (BCA).

The court quashed all three informations as statute barred, finding that the doctrine of discoverability had been incorporated into the BCA, rendering the continuing offence doctrine irrelevant for limitation periods.

The court ruled that only s.14(1) of the BCA is a continuing offence, not s.8(1) or s.12(2), and that failure to issue a stop work order does not convert these offences into continuing offences.

The informations were laid well outside the one-year limitation period based on discovery dates.

The City of Toronto appealed the decision of Justice of the Peace N. Tahiri who imposed fines below the statutory minimum for red light camera offences under s. 144(18.1) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal focused on whether the Justice of the Peace properly applied s. 59(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, which allows courts to impose fines below the minimum in exceptional circumstances.

The Ontario Court of Justice found that the Justice of the Peace failed to properly apply the statutory test, relying instead on docket management considerations without addressing the required legal criteria or inquiring into defendants' personal circumstances.

The Court held that the discretion under s. 59(2) must be exercised judicially, with reasons explaining the decision, and that the fines were imposed arbitrarily.

The appeal was allowed, but the fines remained unchanged at the City's request.

This decision addresses whether Notices of Trial sent exclusively by email under the Provincial Offences Act (POA) and its regulations provide sufficient jurisdiction to proceed under section 9.1 of the POA when defendants fail to appear.

The court found that although defendants provided email addresses and signed Notices of Intention to Appear indicating trial options, the POA administration failed to obtain explicit consent that the technical specifications of the electronic documents (PDF format) were acceptable to the defendants as required by O. Reg. 67/12 s. 4(b).

Consequently, service by email only was insufficient to establish jurisdiction, and the court directed that Notices of Trial be issued by mail to regain jurisdiction.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed a motion for particulars brought by The Econo-Rack Group Inc. (Konstant Manufacturing) in a prosecution under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA).

The Applicant sought particulars regarding the alleged offence under section 45(b) of Ontario Regulation 851, arguing that without such particulars they could not adequately prepare a due diligence defence.

The Court held that the charge as drafted, combined with disclosure, the Crown’s opening statement, and the Inspector’s investigative report, provided sufficient detail to ensure a fair trial.

The Court emphasized that particulars concerning the cause of the accident or the means by which the offence was committed are not required under the Provincial Offences Act and that the focus is on the employer’s failure to uphold prescribed safety measures, not on causation narrowly defined.

This decision addresses a motion for directions brought by the City of Toronto concerning approximately 250 outstanding appeals under the Highway Traffic Act (HTA) initiated by notices of appeal following guilty pleas entered by paralegal representatives.

The Court identified a troubling pattern where appeals were filed but not actively pursued, often by a non-licensed individual, Kiril Kovuntunko, and a licensed paralegal, Adelin B. Mocanu, operating through Ticket Justice.

The Court ordered that all such appeals be perfected by April 9, 2025, with transcripts filed and service completed, and set a hearing date for May 26-27, 2025.

The judgment highlights procedural safeguards, the statutory framework for Part I POA appeals, and the importance of ensuring appeals are not used to delay justice.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the appeals against conviction of Mehendran Kandiah and Rhenu Jewellery Inc. for violating COVID-19 public health orders but allowed the sentence appeals, reducing the fines imposed.

The court found no loss of jurisdiction despite procedural irregularities and emphasized the importance of specific and general deterrence in regulatory offences, especially during a public health crisis.

The decision highlights the court's approach to jurisdictional challenges, the admissibility and impact of fresh financial evidence on sentencing, and the balancing of deterrence with proportionality and restraint in fines for corporate and individual offenders.

The Ontario Court of Justice found Joris Salverda guilty of operating a milk plant without a licence contrary to s. 15(1) of the Milk Act and breaching a probation order under s. 75 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Defendant challenged the applicability of the Milk Act to his private raw milk operation via a Notice of Constitutional Question, arguing that the Act did not apply to his private dealings with customers who assumed risks.

The Court dismissed the constitutional challenge, relying heavily on the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R v. Schmidt, which held that the Milk Act applies to private operations and that there is no constitutional right to sell unpasteurized milk products.

The Court found no violation of s. 7 Charter rights and confirmed the Defendant's guilt on both charges.

The appellants, Caruk-Hall Construction Inc., James Caruk, and Daniel Hall, appealed convictions for acting as an unregistered builder under the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, failing to notify the Warranty Corporation, and failing to pay prescribed fees.

They also challenged the dismissal of their s. 11(b) Charter application alleging unreasonable delay.

The Ontario Court of Justice dismissed the s. 11(b) application, finding the net delay was below the 18-month Jordan ceiling after deducting defence-caused delay and COVID-19 exceptional circumstances.

The court upheld the convictions, finding the appellants were responsible as builders under the Act based on control and responsibility for the home construction.

The sentencing fines were also upheld as appropriate and not excessive given the market context and deterrence objectives.

This application sought to vary or rescind a 2019 consent order that granted the Law Society of Ontario (LSO) access to the applicant's youth court records.

The applicant, a law school graduate, had disclosed a youth conviction for murder in her 2016 LSO admission application, leading to a "good character" investigation.

The court determined that under section 82 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA), once a youth disposition has ceased to have effect, the young person is conclusively deemed not to have been found guilty or convicted of the offence.

This statutory "pardon" means the conviction effectively never existed and cannot be used by the LSO Tribunal for good character assessment.

The court also found that the LSO's application form question, which compelled the applicant to disclose her youth record, was legally incorrect and misleading.

Consequently, the original access order was rescinded, as its intended purpose of using the conviction was legally impermissible.

The defendant brought an oral motion to bar proceedings initiated by the City of Hamilton, arguing they were outside the limitation period set by s.36(8) of the Building Code Act, 1992.

The alleged offence involved construction without a permit, observed in 2021, with proceedings commenced in early 2023.

The court granted the motion, finding the proceedings were indeed barred by the limitation period, applying the "discovery" rule as interpreted in recent case law, and dismissing the "continuing offence" argument as a distraction.

The respondent, Meththa Fernando, appealed her conviction for failing to comply with an order under Section 58 of the Quarantine Act, specifically for refusing a random COVID-19 nasal swab test upon arrival at Pearson Airport.

The court found that Section 14(1) of the Quarantine Act prohibits screening technology that involves the entry of an instrument or foreign body into a traveller's body.

The nasal swab was deemed an "instrument" or "foreign body," and its insertion into the nasal cavity was considered an entry into the body.

Therefore, the screening officer's demand for the test was unlawful, rendering Ms. Fernando's refusal lawful.

The appeal was allowed, the conviction was reversed, and a finding of not guilty was entered.

The defendant, Cementation Canada Inc., brought a motion alleging breaches of its constitutional rights under sections 11(a) and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The motion sought a judicial stay of three charges laid under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, arguing insufficient particulars for two counts and incomplete disclosure of several documents, including a "Director's Memo." The court dismissed the motion, finding that the charges provided sufficient particulars by referencing specific regulatory sections and that the requested disclosure items were either provided, unavailable, or not relevant to raising a reasonable doubt, particularly upholding solicitor-client privilege for the "Director's Memo." The application for costs was also denied.

The Ministry of Labour charged A & L Hammer Workforce Management Inc. and its sole director, Liwayway Coluna Miranda, with failing to comply with orders to pay employee wages and recruitment fees under the Employment Standards Act and Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act.

The defendants pleaded not guilty, with the corporation's trial proceeding ex-parte.

Ms. Miranda raised a due diligence defence, claiming her business was destroyed and accounts frozen due to a CBSA raid and subsequent criminal charges (later withdrawn).

The court found that Ms. Miranda failed to demonstrate due diligence, as she continued to recruit foreign nationals despite financial difficulties and did not make reasonable efforts to secure funds or engage with the Ministry.

Both the corporation and Ms. Miranda were found guilty on all counts.

The defendant, Vivian McClintock, appeared for a Part III trial via Zoom but refused to cooperate, provide her full name, or answer the court's questions, exhibiting behaviour reminiscent of OPCA litigants.

Despite multiple warnings, she continued her contemptuous conduct.

The court, finding direct contempt in the face of the court, issued an arrest warrant for Ms. McClintock pursuant to s. 91 of the Provincial Offences Act, adjourning the original trial sine die.

The court affirmed its common law and statutory authority to issue such a warrant for remote participants.

This is a sentencing decision following convictions under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA) for a workplace fatality.

The corporate defendant and two individual supervisors were found guilty of failing to ensure proper rigging of concrete blocks and adequate training/supervision, leading to a worker's death.

The court applied established sentencing principles, emphasizing deterrence and considering the increased maximum penalties for OHSA offences.

Fines were imposed on the corporate defendant and the two individual supervisors, reflecting the seriousness of the breach and the need for general deterrence.

Kristen Nagle appealed her conviction and $10,000 fine for attending a religious observation with more than ten persons, an offence under the Reopening Ontario Act during the Covid-19 pandemic.

She argued that the Justice of the Peace failed to provide reasonable assistance to her as an unrepresented accused and failed to raise a Charter issue.

The court dismissed the conviction appeal, finding that the trial justice's assistance was reasonable given Nagle's deliberate use of Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Arguments (OPCA) tactics, and that no miscarriage of justice occurred.

However, the court allowed the sentence appeal, reducing the fine to $3,750 (plus costs and surcharges), finding the original reasons for sentence insufficient for meaningful review and considering new biographical information and aggravating factors.

The defendant, Adam Gardin, was sentenced for eight counts of willfully failing to comply with a probation order that included restitution terms.

The court imposed a sentence of 30 days in custody for each count, to be served consecutively, totaling 240 days incarceration.

Additionally, the court ordered a one-year continuation of his original 2019 probation order, rejecting the prosecution's request for a new two-year probation order with modified restitution terms due to lack of jurisdiction under the Provincial Offences Act for a new order in this context.

The decision emphasized the defendant's lack of remorse, pattern of non-compliance, and the ongoing harm to victims as aggravating factors.