Samantha Palmer

The Regional Municipality of Halton appealed a lower court decision that found a restaurant owner not guilty of violating the Health Protection and Promotion Act for improper food temperature.

The central issue was whether the offence was one of strict or absolute liability, and if the due diligence defence was correctly applied.

The court affirmed the lower court's finding that the offence was one of strict liability, not absolute liability, and upheld the finding that the restaurant owner had exercised due diligence in addressing the refrigerator malfunction.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendant was charged with obstructing a public health inspector lawfully carrying out her duties under the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

The inspector attended the defendant's barber shop to conduct a routine annual inspection.

After the inspector made comments about the cleanliness of the Barbicide solution, the defendant lost his temper, left the shop, and subsequently prevented the inspector from completing the inspection by swearing at her, making obscene gestures, and directing her to leave the area.

The court found the offence to be one of strict liability and determined that the prosecution proved all elements of the prohibited act beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant failed to establish the defence of reasonable care or honest and reasonable mistake of fact.

The defendant was found guilty.

The defendant, a convenience store clerk in her second day of training, was charged with selling tobacco to a person under 19 years of age, contrary to the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

A test shopper, aged 17, successfully purchased cigarettes from the defendant without being asked for identification.

The defendant claimed she honestly believed the purchaser was of legal age and that she exercised due diligence given the high volume of customers and stressful circumstances.

The court found the defendant guilty, determining that while her belief may have been honest, it was not objectively reasonable, and she failed to meet the required standard of being "scrupulously vigilant" in preventing sales to minors.