John J.M. Scarfe

Liwayway Miranda brought a motion to quash certain charges under the Employment Standards Act and Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, arguing they were laid outside the limitation period.

The motion was brought late in the trial process, after a finding of guilt but before sentencing.

The core issue was whether the offences were "continuous" or "non-continuous" for limitation period purposes.

The court, applying the principles from Hamilton Health Sciences, found the offences to be continuous, emphasizing compliance with orders over timeliness, and dismissed the motion.

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claiming her business was destroyed and accounts frozen due to a CBSA raid and subsequent criminal charges (later withdrawn).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 brought an application for a stay of proceedings based on a breach of his right to be tried within a reasonable time under section 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The charge was operating a motor vehicle while using a handheld communication device contrary to section 78.1(1) of the Highway Traffic Act, alleged to have occurred on February 20, 2018.

The matter proceeded through multiple adjournments over approximately 24 months.

The court applied the framework established in R v Jordan, determining that the presumptive ceiling for Part 1 Provincial Offences Act matters is 18 months.

After deducting periods of delay attributable to the defence, the net delay was approximately 15 months, falling below the presumptive ceiling.

The application for a stay was dismissed.