Sandra Quadrini

This decision addresses an appeal by Antonio Dimilta against his conviction for failing to stop at a stop sign under s.136(1)(a) of the Highway Traffic Act.

The appeal challenges the validity of the Certificate of Offence on the basis that the indicated place of offence was incorrect, arguing that the Certificate was not “complete and regular on its face” as required by s.9.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act (POA).

The court reviewed the statutory framework and jurisprudence concerning default proceedings and the interpretation of “complete and regular on its face.” It concluded that the alleged error regarding the municipality was not sufficient to mislead or prejudice the defendant, especially given the totality of information before the Justice of the Peace.

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the conviction.

The defendant corporation was charged with three offences under the Fire Protection and Prevention Act for violations discovered at a residential building following a fire on April 3, 2009.

The charges involved: (1) providing devices on required doors that could prevent them from being readily opened from the inside; (2) failing to maintain the fire alarm system in operating condition; and (3) failing to maintain smoke alarms in operating condition.

The prosecution proved the actus reus of all three charges.

The defendant raised a due diligence defence, arguing it had taken reasonable care.

The court found the defendant's fire prevention plan was inadequate, haphazard, and reactive rather than preventive, with poor coordination and no regular monitoring.

The defendant failed to meet its burden of proving due diligence and was convicted on all three charges.