Corporate/Commercial Law - ONCJ

The City of Toronto prosecuted Adamson Barbecue Ltd., Adamson BBQ Ltd., and William Adamson Skelly for 95 by-law offences, including operating an eating establishment and a refreshment vehicle without licenses, and contravening Planning Act by-laws.

The court proceeded ex-parte as no defendants appeared.

The individual defendant, William Adamson Skelly, was found guilty on 17 counts related to operating without licenses.

However, all charges against the corporate defendants were dismissed due to insufficient evidence linking them to the business operations.

Additionally, charges against Mr. Skelly for Planning Act contraventions and aiding and abetting the corporations were dismissed, the latter on the principle that one cannot be convicted as both a principal offender and an aider/abettor for the same offence, and because the corporate defendants were found not guilty.

The Electrical Safety Authority appealed the acquittal of Turano’s Home Improvement Ltd. at trial.

The trial judge had acquitted the corporate defendant, finding that its identity was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, primarily due to the absence of "Ltd" on the contract letterhead.

The appellate court found that the trial judge erred by focusing too narrowly on the letterhead and failing to consider the totality of the evidence, which included witness testimony and documentary evidence confirming the corporate entity's involvement.

The appeal was granted, and the corporate defendant was found guilty on the dismissed counts.

This is a comprehensive tax evasion prosecution involving Le Jardin Banquet and Conference Centre Inc. and its director Carlo Parentela.

The defendants operated a banquet hall in Woodbridge, Ontario and were charged with 131 offences under the Retail Sales Tax Act and Employer Health Tax Act, including wilfully evading tax, making false statements in returns, failing to remit collected taxes, failing to collect taxes, failing to file returns, operating without a vendor permit, and wilfully failing to register as a vendor.

The Crown's investigation revealed that the defendants concealed true sales revenue through restricted access to the Sales Logix software system, withheld cash sales information from their bookkeeper and accountants, and systematically underreported tax obligations.

The defendants were found guilty on all counts after a lengthy trial spanning multiple years.

A sentencing appeal concerning whether a justice of the peace has jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil and hold a sole shareholder and directing mind personally liable for corporate fines.

The defendant corporation pleaded guilty to three charges under the Electricity Act arising from unsafe electrical work that resulted in a death.

The trial judge imposed fines of $430,000 but declined to pierce the corporate veil, finding she lacked jurisdiction.

The Crown appealed, arguing the defendant had improperly transferred corporate assets to himself and a new corporation to shield them from liability.

The appellate court found that justices of the peace do possess implied jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil in appropriate circumstances and that the test was satisfied on these facts.

The Electrical Safety Authority sought an extension of time to file an appeal of a sentencing decision by Justice of the Peace Moses.

The ESA's notice of appeal was filed outside the statutory appeal period.

The central issue was whether the trial court had jurisdiction to pierce the corporate veil to impose consequences on the company's principal and his new enterprise, given that the company's negligent electrical work resulted in the death of an elderly man.

The court granted the extension, finding that the ESA demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal, acted diligently in pursuing the appeal, and that the proposed appeal had sufficient arguable merit.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle without insurance contrary to section 2(1)(a) of the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act.

The registered owner of the vehicle was a one-person corporation owned by the defendant.

The Crown argued that the defendant should be found guilty as the common law owner of the vehicle, alternatively as a party to the offence, or that the corporate veil should be pierced.

The court found that the defendant was not the common law owner of the vehicle, as there was no evidence of exclusive possession or dominion and control.

The court also found that the defendant was not a party to the offence, as there was no evidence that he was a director, officer, or agent of the corporation who had omitted to purchase insurance.

Finally, the court found no basis to pierce the corporate veil, as there was no evidence of fraudulent or improper use of the corporation to avoid compliance with the Act.

The defendants, K-Tech Building Systems Inc. and its president Stanley Kondrotas, were charged with five offences under the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 arising from their agreement with Bonnie Engel to construct a prefabricated cottage on her property.

The charges included making false, misleading or deceptive representations regarding material ordering and delivery, making an unconscionable representation, failing to provide a future performance agreement with prescribed requirements, and failing to refund payment within 15 days of cancellation notice.

The court found that the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 applied to the transaction despite arguments that the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act should govern.

The defendants were convicted on four of five counts after failing to establish the due diligence defence.

The court found that the defendants' failure to include a completion date in the agreement created a situation where the consumer had the right to cancel after 30 days, and the defendants failed to meet their obligations under consumer protection legislation.