R. S. Shousterman, J.P.

The defendant, Cynthia Kirschner, was found guilty of careless driving causing death under the Highway Traffic Act.

The charge arose from a collision where Kirschner, making a left turn at an uncontrolled intersection, failed to yield to an oncoming e-bike, resulting in the rider's death.

The court determined that Kirschner's conduct fell below the standard of a reasonably prudent driver, concluding she failed to see the e-bike despite clear visibility and did not take evasive action.

Arguments regarding the e-bike's modifications or sun glare were dismissed as not excusing the defendant's duty of care.

The defendants were convicted of 69 counts under the Employer Health Tax Act and 62 counts under the Retail Sales Tax Act, involving the failure to remit over $1,675,000 in taxes.

The sentencing decision addresses a sophisticated, multi-year tax evasion scheme involving the operation of multiple related corporations and the deliberate mischaracterization of employment relationships.

The court imposed a custodial sentence of 21 months imprisonment, substantial fines totaling approximately $9.9 million, and probation, finding that the offences constituted fraudulent conduct warranting incarceration despite the defendant's lack of prior criminal record.

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 corporate defendant brought a motion under s. 11(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms seeking a stay of proceedings based on unreasonable delay.

The defendant was charged with three counts under the Occupational Health and Safety Act arising from a workplace injury.

The court considered whether the Jordan framework applied to regulatory matters and corporate accused, and whether the net delay of approximately 25 months exceeded the 18-month presumptive ceiling for provincial court trials.

The court found that Jordan applies to both regulatory prosecutions and corporate defendants, that the delay was presumptively unreasonable, and that the Crown failed to establish exceptional circumstances to justify the delay.

The court granted the stay of the remaining charge.

A self-represented litigant brought a private complaint alleging that the president and counsel of the Real Estate Council of Ontario committed obstruction of justice, fabrication of evidence, and criminal harassment between June 2004 and June 2012.

The complaint arose from a discipline proceeding that resulted in the revocation of the applicant's real estate licence.

The pre-enquete hearing was held over multiple dates spanning nearly two years.

The court found that no prima facie case had been established against either respondent on any of the alleged offences.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, owner and operator of a licensed body rub parlour in Vaughan, sought a declaration that sections of the City of Vaughan By-law 315-2005 regulating hours of operation and dress code requirements for body rub parlours were ultra vires the municipality.

The court found that the impugned provisions, which restricted hours of operation and mandated specific clothing requirements, were in pith and substance criminal legislation regulating prostitution and nudity, matters within exclusive federal jurisdiction.

The court quashed sections 13.0(1)(h), 13.4, 13.0(1)(o), and 13.0(1)(p) of the by-law as ultra vires.

The prosecutor sought to admit written statements from three absent tenants during a trial for Fire Code violations regarding an alleged illegal rooming house.

The court applied the principled exception to the hearsay rule, assessing necessity and reliability.

The court found all statements met the reliability threshold, but only one met the necessity threshold because the prosecutor failed to make adequate efforts to locate and subpoena the other two witnesses.

Consequently, one statement was admitted and two were excluded.